Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Navy Department
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Direct Final Rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is amending the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations, decreasing the value assigned to imported cotton for the purposes of calculating supplemental assessments collected for use by the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. This amendment is required each year to assure that assessments collected on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products will be the same as those paid on domestically produced cotton.
This direct rule is effective August 25, 2014, without further action or notice, unless significant adverse comment is received by July 28, 2014. If significant adverse comment is received, AMS will publish a timely withdrawal of the amendment in the
Written comments may be submitted to the addresses specified below. All comments will be made available to the public. Please do not include personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publically disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines. Comments may be submitted anonymously.
Comments, identified by AMS-CN-13-0100, may be submitted electronically through the
Shethir M. Riva, Chief, Research and Promotion Staff, Cotton and Tobacco Program, AMS, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22406, telephone (540) 361-2726, facsimile (540) 361-1199, or email at
Amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Act (7 U.S.C. 2101-2118) (Act) were enacted by Congress under Subtitle G of Title XIX of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-624, 104 stat. 3909, November 28, 1990). These amendments contained two provisions that authorize changes in the funding procedures for the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. These provisions provide for: (1) The assessment of imported cotton and cotton products; and (2) termination of refunds to cotton producers. (Prior the 1990 amendments to the Act, producers could request assessment refunds.)
As amended, the Cotton Research and Promotion Order (7 CFR part 1205) (Order) was approved by producers and importers voting in a referendum held July 17-26, 1991, and the amended Order was published in the
This direct final rule would amend the value assigned to imported cotton in the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations (7 CFR § 1205.510(b)(2)) that is used to determine the Cotton Research and Promotion assessment on imported cotton and cotton products. The total value of assessment levied on cotton imports is the sum of two parts. The first part of the assessment is based on the weight of cotton imported—levied at a rate of $1 per bale of cotton, which is equivalent to 500 pounds, or $1 per 226.8 kilograms of cotton. The second part of the import assessment (referred to as the supplemental assessment) is based on the value of imported cotton lint or the cotton contained in imported cotton products—levied at a rate of five-tenths of one percent of the value of domestically produced cotton.
Section 1205.510(b)(2) of the Cotton Research and Promotion Rules and Regulations provides for assigning the calendar year weighted average price received by U.S. farmers for Upland cotton to represent the value of imported cotton. This is so that the assessment on domestically produced cotton and the assessment on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products is the same. The source for the average price statistic is
The current value of imported cotton as published in 2013 in the
An example of the complete assessment formula and how the figures are obtained is as follows:
One bale is equal to 500 pounds.
One kilogram equals 2.2046 pounds.
One pound equals 0.453597 kilograms.
A 500-pound bale equals 226.8 kg. (500 × 0.453597).
$1 per bale assessment equals $0.002000 per pound or $0.2000 cents per pound (1/500) or $0.004409 per kg or $0.4409 cents per kg. (1/226.8).
The 2013 calendar year weighted average price received by producers for Upland cotton is $0.755 per pound or $1.664 per kg. (0.755 × 2.2046).
Five tenths of one percent of the average price equals $0.008319 per kg. (1.664 × 0.005).
The total assessment per kilogram of raw cotton is obtained by adding the $1 per bale equivalent assessment of $0.004409 per kg. and the supplemental assessment $0.008319 per kg., which equals $0.012728 per kg.
The current assessment on imported cotton is $0.012876 per kilogram of imported cotton. The revised assessment in this direct final rule is $0.012728, a decrease of $0.000148 per kilogram. This decrease reflects the decrease in the average weighted price of Upland cotton received by U.S. farmers during the period January through December 2013.
Import Assessment Table in section 1205.510(b)(3) indicates the total assessment rate ($ per kilogram) due for each Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number that is subject to assessment. This table must be revised each year to reflect changes in supplemental assessment rates. In this direct final rule, AMS is amending the Import Assessment Table.
AMS believes that these amendments are necessary to assure that assessments collected on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products are the same as those paid on domestically produced cotton. Accordingly, changes reflected in this rule should be adopted and implemented as soon as possible since it is required by regulation.
Rulemaking under section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551
As described this
Also, this direct-final rulemaking furthers the objectives of Executive Order 13563, which requires that the regulatory process “promote predictability and reduce uncertainty” and “identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.”
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not have significant Tribal implications.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to access all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This action has been designated as a “non-significant regulatory action” under § 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and therefore, review has been waived, and this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 12 of the Act, any person subject to an order may file with the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the plan, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and requesting a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such person is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the District Court of the United States in any district in which the person is an inhabitant, or has his principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling, provided a complaint is filed within 20 days from the date of the entry of the Secretary's ruling.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has examined the economic impact of this rule on small entities. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such action so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms (importers) as having receipts of no more than $7,000,000. In 2013, an estimated 17,000 importers are subject to the rules and regulations issued pursuant to the Cotton Research and Promotion Order. Most are considered small entities as defined by the Small Business Administration.
This rule would only affect importers of cotton and cotton-containing products and would lower the assessments paid by the importers under the Cotton Research and
Under the Cotton Research and Promotion Program, assessments are used by the Cotton Board to finance research and promotion programs designed to increase consumer demand for Upland cotton in the United States and international markets. In 2012 (the last audited year), producer assessments totaled $45.8 million and importer assessments totaled $39.3 million. According to the Cotton Board, should the volume of cotton products imported into the U.S. remain at the same level in 2014, one could expect a decrease of assessments by approximately $455,000.
Importers with line-items appearing on U.S. Customs and Border Protection documentation with value of the cotton contained therein which results in an assessment of two dollars ($2.00) or less will not be subject to assessments. In addition, imported organic cotton and products may be exempt from assessment if eligible under section 1205.519 of the Order.
There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
In compliance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations (5 CFR part 1320) which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) the information collection requirements contained in the regulation to be amended have been previously approved by OMB and were assigned control number 0581-0093, National Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Programs. This rule does not result in a change to the information collection and recordkeeping requirements previously approved.
A 30-day comment period is provided to comment on the changes to the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations proposed herein. This period is deemed appropriate because this rule would decrease the assessments paid by importers under the Cotton Research and Promotion Order. An amendment is required to adjust the assessments collected on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products to be the same as those paid on domestically produced cotton. Accordingly, the change in this rule, if adopted, should be implemented as soon as possible.
Advertising, Agricultural research, Cotton, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS amends 7 CFR part 1205 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2101-2118.
(b) * * *
(2) The 12-month average of monthly weighted average prices received by U.S. farmers will be calculated annually. Such weighted average will be used as the value of imported cotton for the purpose of levying the supplemental assessment on imported cotton and will be expressed in kilograms. The value of imported cotton for the purpose of levying this supplemental assessment is $1.2728 cents per kilogram.
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
7 U.S.C. 2101-2118.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Final rule.
The NCUA Board (Board) is issuing a final rule to amend its voluntary liquidation regulation to reduce administrative burdens on voluntarily liquidating federal credit unions (FCUs) and recognize technological advances by: Permitting liquidating FCUs to publish required creditor notices in either electronic media or newspapers of general circulation; increasing the asset-size threshold for requiring multiple creditor notices; requiring that preliminary partial distributions to members not exceed the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) insurance limit for any member share account; specifying when liquidating FCUs must determine member share balances for the purposes of distributions; and permitting liquidating FCUs to distribute member share payouts either by wire or other electronic means or by mail or personal delivery.
This rule is effective July 28, 2014.
Damon Frank and Ian Marenna, Trial Attorneys, Office of General Counsel, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428 or telephone: (703) 518-6540.
This final rule amends NCUA's regulation on voluntary liquidations by FCUs. The changes modernize the rule and afford greater procedural flexibility to voluntarily liquidating FCUs. The final rule adopts the proposed changes in the proposed rule on voluntary liquidations issued by the Board in February 2014.
The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on May 2, 2014. NCUA received five comment letters. Three of the comments were from credit union trade associations, one was sent on behalf of two credit union leagues, and one was from an FCU. All five letters expressly supported the proposed rule in general. Two comment letters from trade associations, however, suggested three identical changes to the proposed rule.
First, these two commenters requested that the final rule require NCUA staff to work with credit unions considering liquidation to find ways to continue operations or merge with another credit union to ensure ongoing member access to credit union services.
Second, both disagreed with the proposal to raise asset-size thresholds that determine whether and how many creditor notices must be published by a
Third, both requested that the final rule adopt provisions similar to the FDIC's liquidation rules to provide members up to $250,000 from their accounts and issue a claim against the estate of the closed credit union. The commenters stated that it would be inappropriate to treat credit union members less favorably than bank customers in a liquidation context.
The Board generally agrees with the rationale the commenters offered to support their proposed changes to the rule. As explained in detail below, however, the Board believes that the proposed rule and the way NCUA administers part 710 in practice already is consistent with the commenters' suggested amendments. Therefore, the Board does not believe it is necessary to amend the proposed rule to address the commenters' concerns.
The final rule will allow voluntarily liquidating FCUs to publish any required creditor notice(s) in electronic media. FCUs may continue to publish in newspapers of general circulation, as provided by the current rule.
The final rule also increases the asset-size threshold for requiring multiple creditor notices from FCUs with assets equal to or greater than $5 million to FCUs with assets equal to or greater than $50 million, which is NCUA's threshold for defining small credit unions. Two commenters did not support these adjustments because they believe that credit unions of all sizes should be required to follow all notice and other requirements to conduct a voluntary liquidation. The Board agrees that liquidation is, as the commenters stated, “an exceptional event” and one that an FCU should undertake only after careful consideration of any alternatives that would provide continuing credit union services to its members. NCUA's Voluntary Liquidation Manual, which was issued in 1994 to provide detailed procedural guidance for this process, expresses the same position. The Board does not believe, however, that raising the asset-size thresholds from their 1993 levels will encourage more voluntary liquidations, disadvantage members, or diminish NCUA's oversight of the process.
The proposed and final rules only affect the asset-size thresholds that govern how a voluntarily liquidating FCU must notify its potential creditors. Notably, the notice and procedural requirements of part 710, including the member vote and notification of the NCUA Regional Director, are unchanged.
The amendment to this provision increases the asset-size threshold applicable to publication requirements. FCUs with assets equal to or greater than $1 million but less than $50 million will be required to publish just one notice. As stated in the proposed rule, the final rule retains the tiered system for determining publication requirements, consistent with inflation since 1993, growth in credit union assets, and NCUA's definition of small credit unions. The Board adopts these amendments without change for the reasons discussed above.
This amendment also increases asset-size thresholds applicable to the publication requirement. FCUs with assets under $1 million are exempted from the publication requirement but still must notify creditors, as required by the existing rule. The Board adopts this change from the proposed rule for the reasons discussed above.
The final rule also makes a minor change to the optional, partial pro rata distribution process. The current rule permits voluntarily liquidating FCUs to make a partial pro rata distribution of assets to members before the liquidation is completed. The Regional Director must approve the distribution.
The final rule also adds a minor clarification to the proposed rule. The proposed rule limited preliminary share distributions to the insured amount available in any account. The final rule clarifies that multiple accounts held by the same member or members may sometimes be aggregated to determine share insurance per part 745 of NCUA's regulations. This clarification does not change the current rule for calculating share insurance and is intended to reflect more accurately how NCUA currently applies share insurance to multiple accounts under part 745.
Two commenters disagreed with the proposed change to this provision and requested that NCUA implement a process comparable to the FDIC's liquidation process. According to the commenters, in a liquidation, the FDIC pays insured amounts up to $250,000 and then provides claims against the estate of the closed bank to the depositors for any amounts above the insured limit. The commenters stated that credit union members should not be treated less favorably than bank customers.
The Board agrees that credit union members should not be disadvantaged and believes that this amendment to the rule does not harm their interests in any way. If the voluntarily liquidating FCU remains solvent throughout the process, its members receive their full account balances, along with any available liquidating dividend. If the FCU becomes insolvent, NCUA would place it into involuntary liquidation under Section 207(a) of the Federal Credit Union Act and apply the payout priorities and procedures in part 709 of NCUA's regulations. During this process, members would receive their insured balances and a certificate of claim in liquidation for any uninsured balances to allow them to share in the proceeds of the involuntary liquidation.
The final rule provides greater specificity for the calculation of pro rata distributions to members. For purposes of this calculation, a voluntarily liquidating FCU will use the date that members approve liquidation to compute share balances, subject to adjustment for any share drafts that clear after the liquidation date.
The final rule also allows voluntarily liquidating FCUs to distribute member payouts by wire or other means, if approved by the member, in addition to the existing option of issuing a check.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a regulation may have on a substantial number of small entities.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or modifies an existing burden.
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. This final rule applies almost exclusively to FCUs and will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the connection between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined that this final rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
NCUA has determined that this rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999.
Credit union, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed above, NCUA amends 12 CFR Part 710 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1766(a), 1786, and 1787.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) Federal credit unions with assets equal to or greater than $50 million as of the month end prior to the liquidation date shall publish the notice once a week in each of three successive weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation in each county in which the Federal credit union maintains an office or branch for the transaction of business on the liquidation date, or through any alternative publication through an electronic medium that is reasonably calculated to reach the general public in the relevant area or areas. The first notice shall be published within seven days of the liquidation date.
(2) Federal credit unions with assets equal to or greater than $1 million but less than $50 million as of the month end prior to the liquidation date shall publish the notice described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section at least once. The notice shall be published within seven days of the liquidation date.
(a) With the approval of the Regional Director, a partial pro rata distribution of the Federal credit union's assets may be made to its members from cash funds available on authorization by the board of directors or liquidating agent. Payment of a partial distribution may exclude member accounts of less than $25.00 and must not exceed the insured amount applicable to any account or accounts, as determined under part 745 of this chapter.
(b) After all assets of the Federal credit union have been converted to cash or found to be worthless and all loans and debts owing to it have been collected or found to be uncollectible and all obligations of the Federal credit union have been paid, with the exception of shares due its members, the books shall be closed and the pro rata distribution to the members shall be computed. The computation shall be based on the total amount in each share account as of the liquidation date or the date on which all share drafts have cleared, whichever is later.
(c) Payments must be made to members promptly after the pro rata distribution has been computed. The Federal credit union may mail a check to a member at his or her last known address, deliver the check personally to the member, or make the payment by wire or any other electronic means approved by a member.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E airspace at Taylor, TX. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Taylor Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport. Airport coordinates also are adjusted.
Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-7654.
On April 7, 2014, the FAA published in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class E airspace by creating a segment extending from the 6.4-mile radius of Taylor Municipal Airport, Taylor, TX, to 10.7 miles north of the airport, for new RNAV standard instrument approach procedures developed at the airport. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted to be in concert with the FAAs aeronautical database.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Taylor Municipal Airport, Taylor, TX.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Taylor Municipal Airport, and within 1.6 miles each side of the 039° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 11.2 miles northeast of the airport, and within 3.9 miles each side of 021° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 7.3 miles northeast of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 359° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 10.7 miles north of the airport.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding four persons under five entries to the Entity List. The persons who are added to the Entity List have been determined by the U.S. Government to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. These persons will be listed on the Entity List under the destinations of China and Hong Kong. There are five entries for four persons because one person is listed under multiple countries, resulting in one additional entry. Specifically, the one additional entry covers one person in China who also has an address in Hong Kong.
In addition, this rule removes one person from the Entity List, as the result of a request for removal submitted by the person, a review of information provided in the removal request in accordance with the EAR, and further review conducted by the End-User Review Committee (ERC).
Karen Nies-Vogel, Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Fax: (202) 482-3911, Email:
The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744) notifies the public about entities that have engaged in activities that could result in an increased risk of the diversion of exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) items to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. Since its initial publication, grounds for inclusion on the Entity List have expanded to include activities sanctioned by the State Department and activities contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests, including terrorism and export control violations involving abuse of human rights. Certain exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to entities identified on the Entity List require licenses from BIS and are usually subject to a policy of denial. The availability of license exceptions in such transactions is very limited. The license review policy for each entity is identified in the license review policy column on the Entity List and the availability of license exceptions is noted in the
The End-user Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.
This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add four persons under five entries to the Entity List on the basis of § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. The five entries added to the Entity List consist of four entries in China, and one entry in Hong Kong.
The ERC reviewed § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) in making the determination to add these four persons to the Entity List. Under that paragraph, persons for whom there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States and those acting on behalf of such persons may be added to the Entity List. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of § 744.11 include an illustrative list of activities that could be contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.
The four persons being added have been determined by the ERC to be involved in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, including the activities described under paragraph (b)(2) and (b)(5) of § 744.11.
The ERC determined that Poly Technologies Inc., Xinshidai Company (New Era Group), and Panda International Information Technology Company, all located in China, and HWA Create, located in China and Hong Kong, be added to the Entity List on the basis of their attempts to procure items, including U.S.-origin items, for activities contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. The ERC determined that these persons' activities have included the activities described under paragraph (b)(2) and (b)(5) of § 744.11 of the EAR. Specifically, these companies have attempted to supply items to the People's Liberation Army and/or to export items to destinations sanctioned by the United States. The Department of State sanctioned Poly Technologies Inc. under the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) in February 2013. Xinshidai Company was sanctioned in 2004 by the Departments of State and the Treasury under Executive Order 12938, and again by the State Department under INKSNA in 2008.
Pursuant to § 744.11(b)(2) and (b)(5) of the EAR, the ERC determined that the conduct of these four persons raises sufficient concern that prior review of exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR involving these persons, and the possible imposition of license conditions or license denials on shipments to the persons, will enhance BIS's ability to prevent violations of the EAR.
For the four persons recommended for addition, the ERC specified a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and a license review policy of presumption of denial. The license requirements apply to any transaction in which items are to be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to any of the persons or in which such persons act as purchaser, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or end-user. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the persons being added to the Entity List in this rule.
This final rule adds the following four persons under five entries to the Entity List:
(1)
—China New Era Group, Xinshidai Plaza, Plaza No. 7 Huayuan Rd., Beijing, China;
(2)
No. B3 Huayuan Rd., Beijing, China (See alternate addresses under Hong Kong);
(3)
Rm 606 Block B, Beijing Agricultural Science Building, Shugang Garden Haidian Middle Rd, Beijing, China;
(4)
27 Wanshoulu, Haidian district, Beijing, China.
(1)
Unit A 5th Floor, Cheong Commercial Building, 19-25 Jervois St, Hong Kong;
Unit B, 6/F, Dah Sing Life Building, 99—1-5 Des Voeux Rd, Hong Kong (See alternate addresses under China).
This rule implements a decision of the ERC to remove one person, Masoud Est. for Medical and Scientific Supplies, located in Jordan, from the Entity List as a result of the person's request for removal from the Entity List. Based upon the review of the information provided in the removal request in accordance with § 744.16 (Procedure for requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entity), and after review by the ERC's member agencies, the ERC determined that this person should be removed from the Entity List.
The ERC decision to remove this person took into account this person's cooperation with the U.S. Government during the appeal process. In accordance with § 744.16(c), the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration has sent written notification to this person, informing this entity of the ERC's decision to remove it from the Entity List. This final rule implements the decision to remove the following person located in Jordan from the Entity List:
(1)
The removal of the one entity referenced above, which was made on the basis of a § 744.16 removal request and was approved by the ERC, eliminates the existing license requirements in Supplement No. 4 to part 744 for exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) to the entity. However, the removal of this entity from the Entity List does not relieve persons of other obligations under part 744 of the EAR or under other parts of the EAR. Neither the removal of an entity from the Entity List nor the removal of Entity List-based license requirements relieves persons of their obligations under General Prohibition 5 in § 736.2(b)(5) of the EAR which provides that, “you may not, without a license, knowingly export or reexport any item subject to the EAR to an end-user or end-use that is prohibited by part 744 of the EAR.” Additionally this removal does not relieve persons of their obligation to apply for export, reexport or in-country transfer licenses required by other provisions of the EAR. BIS strongly urges the use of Supplement No. 3 to part 732 of the EAR, “BIS's `Know Your Customer' Guidance and Red Flags,” when persons are involved in transactions that are subject to the EAR.
Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export or reexport, on June 26, 2014, pursuant to actual orders for export or reexport to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR).
Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 8, 2013, 78, 2013, 78 FR 49107(August 12, 2013), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order 13637.
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. For the four persons added under five entries to the Entity List in this final rule, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. (
5. For the one removal from the Entity List in this final rule, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), BIS finds good cause to waive requirements that this rule be subject to notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest.
In determining whether to grant removal requests from the Entity List, a committee of U.S. Government agencies (the End-user Review Committee (ERC)) evaluates information about and commitments made by listed persons requesting removal from the Entity List, the nature and terms of which are set forth in 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5, as noted in 15 CFR 744.16(b). The information, commitments, and criteria for this extensive review were all established through the notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment process (72 FR 31005 (June 5, 2007) (proposed rule), and 73 FR 49311 (August 21, 2008) (final rule)). This removal has been made within the established regulatory framework of the Entity List. If the rule were to be delayed to allow for public comment, U.S. exporters may face unnecessary economic losses as they turn away potential sales because the customer remained a listed person on the Entity List even after the ERC approved the removal pursuant to the rule published at 73 FR 49311 on August 21, 2008. By publishing without prior notice and comment, BIS allows the applicant to receive U.S. exports immediately since the applicant already has received approval by the ERC pursuant to 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5, as noted in 15 CFR 744.16(b).
The removals from the Entity List granted by the ERC involve interagency deliberation and result from review of public and non-public sources, including sensitive law enforcement information and classified information, and the measurement of such information against the Entity List removal criteria. This information is extensively reviewed according to the criteria for evaluating removal requests from the Entity List, as set out in 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5 and 15 CFR 744.16(b). For reasons of national security, BIS is not at liberty to provide to the public the information on which the ERC relied to make the decision to remove this entity. In addition, the information included in the removal request is specific to information exchanged between the applicant and the ERC, which by law (section 12(c) of the Export Administration Act), BIS is restricted from sharing with the public. The removal requests from the Entity List contain confidential business information, which is necessary for the extensive review conducted by the U.S. Government in assessing such removal requests.
Section 553(d) of the APA generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier than thirty (30) days after they are published in the
No other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required under the APA or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
The additions read as follows:
Social Security Administration.
Final rules.
This final rule adopts, without change, the final rule with request for comments we published in the
These final rules are effective June 26, 2014.
Cheryl Williams, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, (410) 965-1020. 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
We are making final the rules for using electronic substitutions for the Childhood Disability Evaluation Form (SSA-538) we published as a final rule with request for comments in the
On July 15, 2011, we published a final rule with request for comments in the
We have summarized the commenter's view and have responded to the significant issue raised by the commenter.
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this final rule does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB did not reviewed it.
We certify that these rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they affect individuals only. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
These rules do not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, do not require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Administrative practice and procedure; Aged, Blind, Disability benefits; Public assistance programs; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
Accordingly, the final rule with request for comments amending 20 CFR chapter III, part 416, subpart I that was published at 76 FR 41685 on July 15, 2011, is adopted as a final rule without change.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations.
This document contains final regulations relating to disregarded entities (including qualified subchapter S subsidiaries) and the indoor tanning services excise tax. These final regulations affect disregarded entities responsible for collecting the indoor tanning services excise tax and owners of those disregarded entities. The final regulations also relate to disregarded entities and certain exceptions from taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, as well as backup withholding rules and related information reporting requirements. These final regulations affect individual owners of disregarded entities. These regulations also affect the owners of disregarded entities subject to backup withholding rules.
Regarding excise tax-related provisions, Michael H. Beker (202) 317-6855; regarding employment tax-related provisions, Andrew Holubeck (202) 317-4770 (not toll free calls).
This document contains final regulations amending the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under section 1361 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), the Employment Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 31) under sections 3121, 3127, and 3306 of the Code, and the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301) under section 7701 of the Code.
On June 25, 2012, final and temporary regulations (TD 9596) were published in the
Also on June 25, 2012, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-125570-11) was published by cross-reference to the temporary regulations in the
On November 1, 2011, final and temporary regulations (TD 9554) were published in the
Also on November 1, 2011, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-136565-09) was published by cross-reference to the temporary regulations in the
The IRS did not receive any written or electronic comments responding to either notice of proposed rulemaking and a public hearing was neither requested nor held. Accordingly, both sets of proposed regulations are adopted as amended by this Treasury decision without substantive change and both sets of corresponding temporary regulations are removed. The nonsubstantive revisions are discussed in the next section.
These final regulations reorganize and revise § 31.3121(b)(3)-1, § 31.3127-1, § 31.3306(c)(5)-1, and § 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv) for clarity, and no substantive changes are intended to these provisions. In § 31.3121(b)(3)-1, concerning family employment, the general rule that applies to corporations was moved from § 31.3121(b)(3)-1(c) to § 31.3121(b)(3)-1(d), so that the rules for disregarded entities (which are treated as corporations for purposes of Subtitle C under § 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(B)) would follow after the general corporate rule. Similarly, in § 31.3306(c)(5)-1, with respect to the provisions concerning family employment, the general rule that applies to corporations was moved from § 31.3306(c)(5)-1(c) to § 31.3306(c)(5)-1(d), so that the rules for disregarded entities would follow after the general corporate rule. For clarity, § 31.3127-1(a) was reorganized into a list format and headings were added. In addition, §§ 31.3121(b)(3)-1(d), 31.3127-1(b), and 31.3306(c)(5)-1(d) were revised to provide that an entity that is treated as a corporation for purposes of Subtitle C under § 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(B) is not treated as the employer for purposes of applying sections 3121(b)(3), 3127, and 3306(c)(5) and the regulations thereunder.
Section 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(A) continues to provide that § 301.7701-2(c)(2)(i) (relating to certain wholly owned entities) does not apply to taxes imposed under Subtitle C. Section 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(B) also continues to provide that an entity that is disregarded as an entity separate from its owner for any purpose under § 301.7701-2 is treated as a corporation for purposes of taxes imposed under Subtitle C. The cross references that were formerly in § 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(C) and were described as exceptions to § 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(B) are now described as special rules and are added to § 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(B). In addition, the language formerly of § 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(A) regarding backup withholding has been moved to new § 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(C)(
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the proposed regulations that preceded these regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business and no comments were received.
The principal authors of these regulations are Michael H. Beker, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries), and Andrew Holubeck, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt & Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Employment taxes, Income Taxes, Penalties, Pensions, Railroad retirement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation.
Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1, 31, and 301 are amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(8) * * *
(ii)
(B) References to Chapter 49 in paragraph (a)(8) of this section apply to taxes imposed on amounts paid on or after July 1, 2012.
(C) Paragraph (a)(8)(i)(E) of this section applies for periods after December 31, 2014.
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(c) Services performed in the employ of a partnership are within the exception described in paragraph (a) of this section only if the requisite family relationship exists between the employee and each of the partners comprising the partnership.
(d) Services performed in the employ of a corporation are not within the exception described in paragraph (a) of this section, except that services performed in the employ of an entity that is treated as a corporation under § 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(B) of this chapter may qualify for the exception if the requirements of the exception are otherwise met. An entity that is treated as a corporation under § 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(B) of this chapter is not treated as the employer for purposes of applying section 3121(b)(3) and this section. For purposes of applying section 3121(b)(3) and this section, the owner of an entity that is treated as a corporation under § 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(B) of this chapter is treated as the employer.
(e) Paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section apply to wages paid on or after November 1, 2011. However, taxpayers may apply paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section to wages paid on or after January 1, 2009.
(a)
(i) The employer (or if the employer is a partnership, each partner therein) and its employee are members of a recognized religious sect or division described in section 1402(g)(1);
(ii) Both the employer (or if the employer is a partnership, each partner therein) and the employee adhere to the tenets and teachings of that sect; and
(iii) Both the employer and the employee have filed and had approved applications under section 3127(b) for exemption from the taxes imposed by sections 3111 and 3101.
(2)
(b)
(c)
(c) Services performed in the employ of a partnership are within the exception described in paragraph (a) of this section only if the requisite family relationship exists between the employee and each of the partners comprising the partnership.
(d) Services performed in the employ of a corporation are not within the exception described in paragraph (a) of this section, except that services performed in the employ of an entity that is treated as a corporation under § 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(B) of this chapter may qualify for the exception if the requirements of the exception are otherwise met. An entity that is treated as a corporation under § 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(B) of this chapter is not treated as the employer for purposes of applying section 3306(c)(5) and this section. For purposes of applying section 3306(c)(5) and this section, the owner of an entity that is treated as a corporation under § 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(B) of this chapter is treated as the employer.
(e) Paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section apply to wages paid on or after November 1, 2011. However, taxpayers may apply paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section to wages paid on or after January 1, 2009.
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) * * *
(A)
(B)
(C)
(
(e) * * *
(5)(i) Except as provided in this paragraph (e)(5), paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section applies with respect to wages paid on or after January 1, 2009.
(ii) Paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(B) applies with respect to wages paid on or after September 14, 2009. For rules that apply before September 14, 2009, see 26 CFR part 301 revised as of April 1, 2009.
(iii) Paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(C)(
(6) * * *
(iv) References to Chapter 49 in paragraph (c)(2)(v) of this section apply to taxes imposed on amounts paid on or after July 1, 2012.
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on June 23, 2014.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation pertaining to the Beaufort Water Festival from 11:30 a.m. through 4:30 p.m. on July 19, 2014. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the Beaufort Water Festival Air Show. During the enforcement period, the special local regulation establishes a regulated area which all people and vessels will be prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring, or remaining within. Vessels may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the area if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
This rule is effective and will be enforced from 11:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on July 19, 2014.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2014-0005 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email CWO Christopher Ruleman, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone 843-740-3184, email
On April 19, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations; Beaufort Water Festival, Beaufort, SC in the
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to insure safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the Beaufort Water Festival.
This temporary rule creates a regulated area that will encompass a portion of the waterway that is 700 ft wide by 2600 ft in length, whose approximate corner coordinates are as follows: 32°25′47″ N/080°40′44″ W, 32°25′41″ N/080°40′14″ W, 32°25′35″ N/080°40′16″ W, 32°25′40″ N/080°40′46″ W, Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area, but are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring, or remaining within the regulated area. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. Persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary. This rule may have some impact on the public, but these potential impacts will be minimal for the following reasons: (1) The rule will be in effect for only six hours; (2) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the buffer zones without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the effective period; (3) advance notification will be made to the local maritime community via broadcast notice to mariners.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 received 0 comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of Beaufort River from 11:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on July 19, 2014. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. An environmental analysis checklist and a Categorical Exclusion Determination were completed for this event in previous years. Since this event has remained materially unchanged from the time of the prior determinations, a new environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination were not completed for 2014. The previously completed environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination can be found in docket folder for USCG-2013-0213 at
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Marine Safety Information Bulletins, Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce 6 safety zones for 5 fireworks displays and 1 swim event in the Sector Long Island Sound area of responsibility on the dates and times listed in the tables below. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the events. During the enforcement periods, no person or vessel may enter the regulated area or safety zones without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.151 will be enforced during the dates and times listed in the
If you have questions on this notice, call or email Petty Officer Scott Baumgartner, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound; telephone 203-468-4559, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.151 on the specified dates and times as indicated in the Tables below. If the event is delayed by inclement weather, the regulation will be enforced on the rain date indicated in the Tables below. These regulations were published in the
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.151, the fireworks displays and swim events listed above are established as safety zones. During the enforcement periods, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within the regulated area or safety zone unless they receive permission from the COTP or designated representative.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR part 165 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Erie, Hamburg, NY. This rule is necessary to protect the United States military and Canadian military participants as well as mariners and vessels from the navigational and safety hazards associated with the airborne deployment of U.S. and Canadian military personnel and their associated equipment. This rule is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie from the shoreline of Woodlawn Beach out approximately one mile into Lake Erie during the airborne deployment exercise.
This temporary final rule is effective from 7:30 a.m. July 9, 2014, until 6:30 p.m. July 11, 2014. It will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. daily from July 9, 2014 through July 11, 2014.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Christopher Mercurio, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9573, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this TFR 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 doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display, which are discussed further below.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this TFR effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Between 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. each day on July 9-11, 2014 a training operation will be taking place on Lake Erie Hamburg, NY. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that airborne deployment of military personnel may pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include parachutes and rigging equipment for the parachuting military personnel floating on the water as well as the potential for collisions between vessels and descending parachuting military personnel.
With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of U.S. and Canadian military personnel, transient watercraft and potential spectator vessels during this exercise. This zone will be effective and enforced between 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. daily from July 9, 2014, through July 11, 2014. Radio broadcasts will be made prior to all jump evolutions. This safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Hamburg, NY off of Woodlawn beach within a zone described by the following position: Beginning at 42°45′50.82″ N, 078°53′23.46″ W, the point of origin, in a straight line north to 42°46′50.82″ N, 078°53′23.46″ W then in a straight line east to 42°46′50.82″ N, 078°52′01.68″ W then in a straight line to south to the shoreline position 42°46′17.84″ N, 078°52′01.68″ W and continuing along the shoreline south to 42°45′50.82″ N, 078°52′48.18″ W and returning in a straight line west to the point of origin (NAD 83).
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
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 conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this rule on small entities. 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. 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 might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Erie between 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily starting on July 9-11, 2014.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only 10 hours each day. The majority of the training exercises will be conducted during the regular business week during normal daylight business hours reducing the likelihood of affecting transient recreational vessels. Traffic may be allowed to pass around the zone with
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Commandant Instruction because it involves the establishment of a safety zone.
A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and a preliminary 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. Chapters 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)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
(d)
(e)
(f)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing three temporary safety zones during Fourth of July firework events on navigable waterways in the vicinity of Stuart, West Palm Beach, and Miami, Florida. These safety zones are necessary to protect the public from hazards associated with launching fireworks over the navigable waters of the United States. Non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within any of the safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.
This rule is effective and will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2014.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2014-0165]. 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 John K. Jennings, Sector Miami Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (305) 535-4317, email
On May 6, 2014, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones: July 4th Fireworks Displays within the Captain of the Port Miami Zone, FL was published in the
Under
(a) The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(b) The purpose of the rule is to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters of the United States.
Multiple fireworks display events are planned for Fourth of July celebrations throughout the Captain of the Port Miami Zone. The fireworks will explode over navigable waters of the United States.
The Coast Guard is establishing three temporary safety zones for fireworks displays on July 4, 2014 on navigable waters of the United States within the Captain of the Port Miami Zone based on the location and/or size of the events. The safety zones are listed below.
The first safety zone is in Stuart, Florida. The safety zone encompasses all waters within a 400 yard radius around the barge from which the fireworks will be launched, located on the St. Lucie River north of City Hall.
The second safety zone is in West Palm Beach, Florida. The safety zone encompasses all waters within a 300 yard radius around the barge from which the fireworks will be launched, located on the Intracoastal Waterway north of the Royal Palm Bridge. This safety zone will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 10:15 p.m.
The third safety zone is located at Bayfront Park, Miami, Florida. The safety zone encompasses all waters within a 400 yard radius around the barge from which the fireworks will be launched, located on the waters of Biscayne Bay east of Bayfront Park. This safety zone will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 9:45 p.m.
Non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within any of the safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.
Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter the safety zones by contacting the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at 305-535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zones is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or the designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zones by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) Each safety zone will be enforced for less than two hours; (2) although non-participant persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zones without authorization from the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding areas during the enforcement period; (3) non-participant persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zones during the enforcement period if authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zones to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of motor vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within any of the safety zones described in this regulation during the respective enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard previously completed a Categorical Exclusion Determination for these temporary safety zones in 2013. The regulation for the 2013 occurrences is similar in all aspects to this year's regulation with the exception of the removal of one event in Deerfield Beach. This display was removed from this year's regulation for lack of need due to low vessel spectatorship. Since this year's event is similar to the 2013 event and regulation, the same Categorical Exclusion Determination is being referenced for this year's regulation. The Categorical Exclusion Determination is available in the docket folder for USCG-2013-0429 at
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)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(c)
(1) Non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in or remaining within the safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.
(2) Non-participant persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zones may contact the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at 305-535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within a safety zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zones by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary Final Rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the Navesink River in the vicinity of Rumson, NJ for a fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. This rule is intended to restrict all vessels from a portion of the Navesink River before, during, and immediately after the fireworks event.
This rule is effective on June 27, 2014 from 9:15 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2014-0353]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Kristopher Kesting, Sector New York, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; Telephone (718) 354-4154, Email
The Coast Guard is issuing this 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 a late event application was received on March 13, 2014 and therefore sufficient time was not available to execute the full NPRM process. The event sponsor advised that the event is in correlation with a large Meridian Health fundraiser event, and therefore the sponsor is unable to cancel or delay the event date.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels from hazards associated with the fireworks display.
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the Navesink River, in the vicinity of Rumson, NJ. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port (COTP) New York or a designated representative during the enforcement of the temporary safety zone. Entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within the temporary safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP, or a designated representative.
Based on the inherent hazards associated with fireworks, the COTP New York has determined that fireworks launched in close proximity to water craft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. The combination of an increased number of recreational vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and debris, especially burning debris falling on passing or spectator vessels, has the potential to result in serious injuries or fatalities. This temporary safety zone will restrict vessels from a portion of the Navesink River around the location of the fireworks launch platform before, during, and immediately after the fireworks display.
The Coast Guard has determined that this regulated area will not have a significant impact on vessel traffic due to its temporary nature and limited size and the fact that vessels are allowed to transit the navigable waters outside of the regulated area.
Advanced public notifications may also be made to the local mariners through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, the Local Notice to Mariners as well as Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
The Coast Guard's implementation of this temporary safety zone will be of short duration and is designed to minimize the impact to vessel traffic on the navigable waters. This temporary safety zone will only be enforced for a short period, in the late evening. Due to the location, vessels will be able to transit around the zone in a safe manner.
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.
(1) This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the navigable waters in the vicinity of the marine event during the effective period.
(2) This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for a short period, vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such 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 the establishment of a temporary safety zone. 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
Marine safety, Navigation (water), reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 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, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(d)
(1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23, as well as the following regulations, apply.
(2) No spectators will be allowed to enter into, transit through, or anchor in the safety zone without the permission of the COTP or a designated representative.
(3) All spectators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or a designated representative. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, vessel spectator shall proceed as directed.
(4) Spectators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the COTP or a designated representative via VHF channel 16 or 718-354-4353 (Sector New York command center) to obtain permission to do so.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve the portions of revisions to the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), on September 15, 2008, and August 30, 2010, that incorporate changes to the state rules reflecting the 2006 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM). EPA approved the remaining portions of Georgia's September 15, 2008, and August 30, 2010, SIP revisions in a previous rulemaking.
This rule will be effective on July 28, 2014.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0223. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Nacosta Ward, 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. The telephone number is (404) 562-9140. Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic mail at
EPA is taking final action to approve the portions of Georgia's September 15, 2008, and August 30, 2010, SIP revisions related to the PM
EPA published an accompanying proposed approval to the May 16, 2013, direct final rule in the event that EPA received adverse comment and withdrew the direct final rule.
On May 17, 2013, EPA received comments from a single commenter solely on the portions of the rulemaking related to the PM NAAQS; therefore, EPA withdrew the PM portions of the direct final rule.
EPA approved a Georgia SIP revision on February 9, 2010, that adopted the 1997 24-hour PM
EPA approved Georgia's SIP revision on December 14, 1992, that adopted the initial 1987 24-hour PM
On May 17, 2013, EPA received a comment from one member of the general public. While the comment was generally in support of EPA's action, EPA withdrew the direct final rule because the comment could be interpreted as adverse. A summary of the comment and EPA's response is provided below.
EPA is approving the portions of Georgia's September 15, 2008, and August 30, 2010, SIP revisions that relate to the PM NAAQS because they are consistent with the PM NAAQS in effect at the time of submittal.
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 25, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42.U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing the May 22, 2014, direct final rule approving a revision to the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA will address the comment in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed rulemaking action, also published on May 22, 2014. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.
The direct final rule published at 79 FR 29324 on May 22, 2014, is withdrawn effective June 26, 2014.
Michael Leslie, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6680,
EPA is withdrawing the May 22, 2014 (79 FR 29324), direct final rule approving a revision to the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, Illinois-Indiana area. In the direct final rule, EPA stated that if adverse comments were received by June 23, 2014, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. On May 26, 2014, EPA received a comment, which it interprets as adverse and, therefore, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule. EPA will address the comment in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed rulemaking action, also published on May 22, 2014 (79 FR 29395). EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is revising certain export provisions of the cathode ray tube (CRT) final rule published on July 28, 2006. The revisions will allow the Agency to better track exports of CRTs for reuse and recycling in order to ensure safe management of these materials.
This final rule is effective on December 26, 2014.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-1014. All documents in the docket are listed on the
For more detailed information on specific aspects of this rulemaking, contact Amanda Kohler, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, MC 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, (703) 347-8975,
This rule affects all persons who export used CRTs for reuse or recycling. This action does not affect households or conditionally exempt small quantity generators.
Today's rule is promulgated under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3001, 3002, 3004, 3006, and 3007 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924, 6926, 6927, and 6938.
Today's rule revises the export provisions that apply to persons who export used CRTs for reuse or recycling. The existing regulations were first promulgated on July 28, 2006 (71 FR 42928). Since promulgation of these regulations, the Agency has realized the necessity of obtaining additional information on the export of these materials to better ensure their proper management. This rule is intended to accomplish that goal.
Today's rule affects only the export provisions of the CRT rule and does not affect any regulations applicable to the domestic management of used CRTs. Today's rule also does not affect unused CRTs. In today's rule, EPA is (1) adding a definition of “CRT exporter” to the regulations; (2) requiring annual reports from exporters of used CRTs exported for recycling; (3) revising the notification that must be submitted when used CRTs are exported for recycling; (4) revising the notification that must be submitted when used CRTs are exported for reuse; and (5) requiring that normal business records maintained by exporters of used CRTs for reuse be translated into English upon request. These changes are described in section VI of the preamble.
In June 2002, EPA proposed to amend its hazardous waste regulations under RCRA to streamline the management standards for used CRTs in an effort to encourage reuse and recycling of these materials rather than landfilling or possible incineration (67 FR 40508, June 12, 2002). In that proposal, EPA described how used CRTs can be reused and recycled.
Many used computers are resold or donated so that they can be used again, either as is or after minor repairs. The Agency encourages this option as a responsible way to manage these materials, because preventing or delaying their discard conserves resources. This option extends the lives of valuable products and delays their introduction into the waste management system. Reuse also allows schools, non-profit organizations, and individual families to use equipment that they otherwise could not afford. Many markets for the reuse of computers are located abroad, particularly in countries where few may be able to purchase state-of-the-art new equipment (67 FR 40510).
Organizations that handle used computers vary in their practices. In some cases, organizations take donations of used computer equipment. These organizations may test the equipment, and, if necessary, rewire it and replace various parts before sending them off for reuse. In other cases, the entities that collect the used CRTs send them to another organization with more expertise for evaluation and possible repair and reuse. CRTs that cannot be used after such minor repairs may be sent to recycling or disposal (67 FR 40510).
In its 2006 final rule, EPA reaffirmed that materials used and taken out of service by one person are not wastes when the next owner uses them for their intended purpose. EPA also stated that used CRTs undergoing repairs (such as rewiring or replacing defective parts) before resale or distribution are not being reclaimed and are considered to be products in use rather than solid wastes (71 FR 42929).
If reuse or repair is not a practical option, CRTs can be sent for recycling, which typically consists of disassembly for the purpose of recovering valuable materials from the CRTs, especially glass. When processing begins, the CRT display unit is dismantled, and the bare CRT is separated from all other parts (usually glass, plastic, or metal). Next, the vacuum is released by either drilling or punching through the anode, a small metal button in the funnel, or removing the electron gun portion of the tube. The different glass portions of the CRT (panel, funnel, and frit line) are then separated and classified according to chemical composition, especially by the amount of lead contained. All glass is then cleaned and sorted and cleaned cullet (
The Agency promulgated the CRT rule on July 28, 2006 (71 FR 42928). In that rule, EPA amended its regulations under RCRA to streamline the management standards for used CRTs in an effort to encourage recycling and reuse of these materials rather than landfilling or possible incineration. The scope of the rule encompassed both used, intact CRTs and used, broken CRTs (
In addition to these domestic regulations, the CRT rule also established conditions at § 261.39(a)(5) for used, broken CRTs and at § 261.40 for used, intact CRTs exported for recycling. In order for these CRTs to be excluded from the definition of solid waste, the exporter must meet specific conditions. In particular, exporters of used CRTs for recycling must notify EPA of an intended shipment 60 days before the initial shipment occurs. Notifications may cover exports extending over a 12-month or lesser period. The notification must include contact information about the exporter, the recycler, and an alternate recycler, as well as a description of the manner in which the CRTs will be recycled, the frequency and rate of export, the means of transport, the total quantity of CRTs to be shipped, and information about which transit countries the shipments will pass through.
When EPA receives this information, it forwards it to the receiving country and any transit countries for review. When the receiving country consents in writing to receive the CRTs, EPA forwards an Acknowledgement of Consent to Export CRTs to the exporter. The exporter may not ship the CRTs until it receives the Acknowledgement of Consent to Export CRTs. If the receiving country does not consent or withdraws a prior consent, EPA will notify the exporter in writing, and the exporter must not allow any shipments or further shipments to proceed. Exporters must keep copies of notifications and Acknowledgements of Consent to Export CRTs for three years following receipt of the consent. Consent is not required from transit countries, but EPA notifies the exporter of any responses from these countries. Under § 261.39(c), processed glass (
With respect to used, intact CRTs that are exported for reuse, § 261.41 currently requires exporters to submit a one-time notification to EPA with contact information and a statement that they are exporting CRTs for reuse. They must keep copies of normal business records demonstrating that the CRTs in each shipment will be reused. Records must be retained for three years from the date of export. Examples of normal business records include contracts, invoices, shipping documents, and other documents that identify the planned disposition of the materials.
In proclaiming November 15, 2010, as America Recycles Day, President Obama stated that Americans must increase our capacity to recycle our used electronics responsibly. Increasing domestic recycling efforts can create green jobs, lead to more productive reuse of valuable materials, and support a vibrant American recycling and refurbishing industry. If done properly, we can increase our domestic recycling efforts, reduce harm from exports of electronic waste (e-waste) being handled unsafely in developing countries, strengthen domestic and international markets for viable and functional used electronic products, and protect health and environmental threats at home and abroad.
To seize these opportunities and address the problems caused by discarded used electronics, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), acting under Executive Order 13514 and on previous executive orders, established the Interagency Task Force on Electronics Stewardship, co-chaired by EPA and the General Services Administration (GSA), as well as CEQ.
On behalf of the Task Force, EPA solicited public comment from stakeholders through a notice published in the
On July 20, 2011, the Task Force articulated its goals and recommendations in its report titled
The National Strategy states that, despite decreased production of CRTs, many are still being exported for recycling or reuse and some CRTs that are exported for reuse are actually disassembled and recycled under unsafe conditions. Therefore, EPA committed to proposing changes to the CRT rule to better track exports of CRTs for reuse and recycling. These proposed regulatory changes would clarify who is subject to the rule, which would improve compliance throughout the regulated community. Additionally, EPA would gather additional information on shipments of CRTs that are sent for reuse.
Thus, in March 2012, EPA proposed revisions to the export provisions of the CRT exclusion in order to better track exports of CRTs and ensure safe management abroad (77 FR 15336, March 15, 2012). Today's rule makes final the revisions, mostly as proposed.
EPA is finalizing the following revisions to the export provisions of the conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for used CRTs (§ 261.4(a)(22)).
In March 2012, EPA proposed to add a definition of “CRT exporter” to § 260.10 to eliminate any potential
As discussed in the March 2012 proposed rule, there may be several persons involved in the generation, collection, management, and eventual export of CRTs for recycling or reuse. Thus, EPA has concluded that defining “CRT exporter” is important to properly assign responsibility for the CRT exporter duties and to enable effective compliance monitoring of the export provisions of the rule. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the definition of “CRT exporter” mostly as proposed.
The CRT exporter and any intermediary arranging for the export must be based in the United States, because foreign-based entities add to the possibility of confusion over fulfilling the export responsibilities and it is more difficult to establish EPA jurisdiction over such persons.
Additionally, EPA notes that “person,” which is used in today's definition of CRT exporter, is defined in § 260.10 to mean an individual, trust, firm, joint stock company, federal agency, corporation (including a government corporation), partnership, association, state, municipality, commission, political subdivision of a state, or any interstate body.
If a person exports used CRTs for recycling without fulfilling the export notice provisions of the CRT rule, the receiving country would be unaware that these materials were entering the country and would be unable to provide consent. Additionally, EPA would be unable to respond to information requests from foreign countries regarding the export of CRTs abroad. This would hinder the receiving country's ability to determine whether the imported used CRTs are being properly managed. Intermediaries who participate in arranging for the CRT exports, as well as the actual entities who initiated the CRT export, may be held jointly and severally liable under RCRA for exporting hazardous waste in violation of the hazardous waste export requirements if they fail to fulfill the notice condition, among other conditions, of the CRT rule.
EPA modeled today's definition of “CRT exporter” on the definition of “primary exporter” of hazardous waste in § 262.51. Thus, EPA believes the reference to “any intermediary” is important to maintain consistent accountability throughout the RCRA export regulations.
As an example of how the definition would apply, a state may contract with a recycling facility to collect and recycle used electronics, including used CRTs. The recycling facility makes the decision regarding which CRTs can be reused, refurbished, or recycled. The recycling facility also makes the decision whether to reuse or recycle the CRTs domestically or whether to export the used CRTs, sometimes through a broker.
In this case, the generators of the CRTs, as well as the state that contracted with the recycling facility, are not involved in the decision-making to export certain CRTs and are not initiating a transaction to export, or arranging for export. Thus, these entities would not be considered a “CRT exporter” and are not responsible for fulfilling the CRT exporter duties.
On the other hand, because the recycling facility is making the determination regarding whether and which CRTs will be reused, refurbished, or recycled domestically or internationally, then the recycling facility is making the decision to export certain CRTs and is thus initiating a transaction to export. Therefore, the recycling facility is considered a CRT exporter and is responsible for the CRT exporter duties. Furthermore, if the recycling facility used a broker to manage the export, both the recycling facility (which initiated the export) and the broker (who arranged for the export) would be considered a CRT exporter and thus responsible for the CRT exporter duties.
Another example of how the definition would apply includes an electronic recycler that has collected CRTs and is storing them on site. In this case, the electronic recycler determines how the CRTs will ultimately be managed, either via reuse, recycling, or disposal. The electronic recycler also initiates the transaction to export by partnering with a broker to find foreign entities that can reuse or recycle the CRTs abroad—that is, the broker acts as an intermediary and makes arrangements for the export of used CRTs by soliciting and evaluating bids from foreign entities and other handling arrangements (e.g., contracts) with foreign entities. In addition, the electronic recycler makes arrangements for the export of used CRTs by reviewing or receiving information from the broker and packaging and preparing the used CRTs for transport across international boundaries. Therefore,
To avoid duplicative submissions, the Agency expects only one person to perform the exporter duties under §§ 261.39(a)(5) and 261.41, thus persons should assign these exporter responsibilities among themselves. However, all persons are jointly and severally liable for failing to comply with the exporter conditions. In other words, EPA has the authority to enforce against all persons associated with the export who meet the definition of “CRT exporter.”
In many cases, generators of CRTs do not possess the expertise to determine whether certain CRTs can and may be reused, refurbished, or recycled—whether domestically or internationally. Many generators contract out collection and management of used CRTs to a recycling facility, whose business includes making these determinations. Thus, EPA does not believe that generators should automatically meet the definition of “CRT exporter” because, in many cases, the generator would not be making the decision to export the used CRTs and moreover would lack specific knowledge of the exporting operations (e.g., foreign destination facility, quantity of used CRTs to be exported) needed to submit export notices.
However, generators of used CRTs that do make the decision to export certain CRTs and thus initiate, or arrange for, export of used CRTs, would meet the definition of “CRT exporter” and thus would be responsible for fulfilling the CRT exporter duties. (As noted previously, if more than one person is a CRT exporter, then only one person must perform the exporter duties under §§ 261.39(a)(5) and 261.41, however, all CRT exporters are liable if the exporter duties are not fulfilled.)
In March 2012, EPA proposed to require annual reports from exporters of used CRTs sent for recycling. In general, these reports would provide EPA with more accurate information on the total quantity of CRTs actually exported for recycling during the calendar year, and would also help determine whether CRTs exported for recycling are handled as commodities and not discarded. Additionally, EPA would be able to analyze shipments from specific exporters by comparing actual shipments in the annual report against proposed shipments in the export notice to ensure that the shipments occurred under the terms approved by the receiving country. Finally, these reports would enable EPA to provide receiving countries with information that may assist them in determining the quantity of CRTs that were received in a particular country for recycling.
For the above reasons, EPA is finalizing at § 261.39(a)(5)(x) the proposed condition that the CRT exporter submit annual reports for used CRTs exported for recycling. Under today's rule, the exporter must provide, no later than March 1 of each year, an annual report summarizing the quantities (in kilograms), frequency of shipment, and ultimate destination(s) (
Annual reports must be submitted to the same EPA office that currently receives the export notices—that is, EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. In addition, CRT exporters are required to keep copies of each annual report for a period of at least three years from the due date of the report.
In March 2012, EPA proposed a change to the notice required for CRTs exported for recycling. The current notice at § 261.39(a)(5)(i)(F) requires the exporter to state the name and address of the recycler and any alternate recycler. EPA had proposed to replace this language with a condition that the exporter state the name and address of the recycler or recyclers and the estimated quantity of used CRTs to be
As we explained in the proposal, used CRTs may be exported to more than one destination facility in a foreign country. For example, used CRTs may first be sent to a foreign facility responsible for importing the CRTs and then may be subsequently sent to another foreign facility responsible for recycling the CRTs. Requiring the proposed additional information will allow EPA to provide the receiving country with the most accurate information available about any interim destination and the ultimate destination of the CRTs when they reach that country. This further enables the receiving country to ensure proper management of the used CRTs in that country. Because this additional information will further ensure that used CRTs exported for recycling are managed safely, we are finalizing the proposed change in today's rule.
In March 2012, EPA proposed revisions to the notification requirements for CRTs exported for reuse codified at § 261.41. Specifically, EPA proposed to replace the one-time notice for used, intact CRTs exported for reuse with a condition that the notice (1) be submitted to cover exports for reuse expected over a 12-month or lesser period; and (2) contain additional information, similar to the notification required for CRTs exported for recycling. Additionally, EPA requested comment regarding whether the proposed notice should be sent to the Regional Administrator (as is the case in the existing § 261.41) or to EPA Headquarters, where notices for CRTs exported for recycling are currently sent.
Currently, the notification for CRTs exported for reuse contains minimal information: Name, address, and EPA ID (if applicable), the name and phone number of a contact person for the exporter, and a statement that the notifier plans to export used, intact CRTs for reuse. The current notification provides no information regarding where the used, intact CRTs are being exported for reuse, which hinders EPA's ability to share information with the receiving country if there is an issue with the export, which, in turn, inhibits the receiving country's ability to ensure safe management of the CRTs. Furthermore, the one-time nature of the notice provides no assurance that the information collected over time will accurately reflect entities that are exporting CRTs for reuse, which greatly hinders use of the data for compliance monitoring and reporting purposes.
Because the Agency has determined that the currently required information in the notification does not provide sufficient information to allow EPA to adequately monitor compliance and ensure that used, intact CRTs are reused according to the exclusion and not discarded, the Agency is finalizing the proposed condition to expand the notification for CRTs exported for reuse and to require submittals to cover exports over a 12-month or lesser period. Additionally, EPA is requiring that the notice be sent to the same EPA office that receives notices for CRTs exported for recycling (EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance), which will improve efficiency and tracking of all notices for CRTs exported for recycling and reuse.
This additional information will enable better reporting by EPA in response to information requests from receiving countries and other interested parties regarding exports of used CRTs for reuse. This information will, in turn, enable effective compliance monitoring by EPA and those countries receiving such exports, which decreases the risk of potential mismanagement of the materials. Therefore, exporters of used, intact CRTs sent for reuse must send a notification to EPA that would cover export activities extending over a 12-month or lesser period. The written notification, signed by the exporter, must contain the following information listed in § 261.41:
• The name, mailing address, telephone number, and EPA ID number (if applicable) of the exporter of the used, intact CRTs;
• The estimated frequency or rate at which the used, intact CRTs are to be exported for reuse and the period of time over which they are to be exported;
• The estimated total quantity of used, intact CRTs specified in kilograms;
• All points of entry to and departure from each transit country through which the used, intact CRTs will pass, a description of the approximate length of time the used, intact CRTs will remain in such country, and the nature of their handling while there;
• A description of the means by which each shipment of the used, intact CRTs will be transported (e.g., mode of transportation vehicle, such as air, highway, rail, water, etc.), as well as the type(s) of container (drums, boxes, tanks, etc.);
• The name and address of the ultimate destination facility or facilities where the used, intact CRTs will be reused, refurbished, distributed or sold for reuse and the estimated quantity of used, intact CRTs to be sent to each facility, as well as the name of any alternate destination facility or facilities;
• A description of the manner in which the used, intact CRTs will be reused (including reuse after refurbishment) in the foreign country that will be receiving the used, intact CRTs; and
• A certification signed by the CRT exporter that states “I certify under penalty of law that the CRTs described in this notice are intact and fully functioning or capable of being functional after refurbishment and that the used CRTs will be reused or refurbished and reused. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this and all attached documents and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.”
CRT exporters who export used, intact CRTs for reuse must comply with the revised notification requirements at § 261.41 as of the effective date of the rule, regardless of whether or not they have already submitted a one-time notification under the previous requirements.
The Agency notes that used, intact CRTs exported for reuse can be identical in appearance to those exported for recycling. In addition, information in the record, both for this rulemaking and for the 2006 CRT rulemaking, shows that exported electronics for alleged reuse may not in fact be handled as valuable commodities in foreign countries.
We consider the specific information required in today's notification to be the minimum information needed to enable credible evaluation of the status of hazardous secondary materials under section 3007 of RCRA and to ensure proper management of these materials. EPA further believes that RCRA section 3007 allows us to gather information about any material when we have reason to believe that it may be a solid waste and possibly a hazardous waste within the meaning of RCRA section 1004(5). Section 2002 also gives EPA authority to issue regulations necessary to carry out the purposes of RCRA.
The intent of this notification is to provide basic information to EPA about who will be exporting used, intact CRTs for reuse. The specific information included in the notification will enable regulatory agencies to monitor compliance adequately and to ensure used, intact CRTs are reused and not discarded. The information will enable better reporting by EPA in response to information requests from receiving countries and other interested parties regarding exports of used, intact CRTs for reuse. This information will, in turn, enable effective compliance monitoring by EPA and in those countries which receive such CRTs for reuse, which decreases the risk of potential mismanagement of the materials.
Regarding the ultimate destination facility, EPA agrees with the commenter that it is not practical for the exporter to identify all of the potential customers who might purchase and reuse the CRTs and, in fact, EPA is not looking for the CRT exporter to identify all potential customers in the export notification. Rather, when requiring the “ultimate destination facility or facilities where the CRTs will be reused,” EPA means for CRT exporters to identify the facility or facilities that will be refurbishing the CRTs or receiving the CRTs to be distributed or sold for reuse. To clarify this issue, EPA has modified the language of the requirement to require “the name and address of the ultimate destination facility or facilities where the CRTs will be reused,
Additionally, EPA affirms that persons notifying that they are exporting used, intact CRTs for reuse, but whose CRTs are subsequently not reused, but recycled or disposed, may be subject to enforcement action under RCRA section 3008(a) for violations of the hazardous waste requirements occurring from the time the hazardous secondary materials are generated through the time they are ultimately disposed or recycled. The Agency affirms that § 261.2(f) applies to claims that hazardous secondary materials are not solid waste or are conditionally exempt from regulation. Respondents in enforcement actions should be prepared to demonstrate that there is a known market (for reuse of the used, intact CRTs) and that they are meeting the terms of the exclusion.
Under § 261.41(b), persons who export CRTs for reuse must keep copies of normal business records, such as contracts, demonstrating that each shipment of CRTs that are exported will be reused. The documentation must be retained for a period of at least three years from the date the CRTs were exported. In the March 2012 proposal, EPA requested comment regarding whether to require persons who export used, intact CRTs for reuse to provide a third-party translation of the documents into English, if the documents are written in a language other than English and if EPA requests such a translation.
EPA believes that requiring CRT exporters to provide an English translation of normal business records upon request by EPA is inherent in the demonstration that each shipment of used, intact CRTs will be reused. English translation will also assist with compliance monitoring of this provision. Therefore, EPA is amending the condition at § 261.41(b) to read: “CRT exporters of used, intact CRTs sent for reuse must keep copies of normal business records, such as contracts, demonstrating that each shipment of exported used, intact CRTs will be reused. This documentation must be retained for a period of at least three years from the date the CRTs were exported. If the documents are written in a language other than English, CRT exporters of used, intact CRTs sent for reuse must provide both the original, non-English version of the normal business records as well as a third-party translation of the normal business records into English within 30 days upon request by EPA.”
EPA also requested comment on several other issues in the March 2012 proposed rule, including (1) whether to require exporters of CRTs for reuse to include with all shipments a copy of the notification submitted pursuant to § 261.41; (2) whether to require specific types of documents to be retained by exporters of used, intact CRTs for reuse, including contracts, invoices, and/or shipping documents; (3) whether to require persons who export CRTs for reuse to provide contact information on an alternative destination facility for used, intact CRTs that are damaged in transit, or whether to require such persons to send the damaged CRTs back to the CRT exporter; (4) whether to require persons who export used, intact CRTs for reuse to submit annual reports like those proposed for persons who export CRTs for recycling; and (5) whether “bare” CRTs (used, intact CRTs that are removed from the monitor with the vacuum still intact, even though the plastic housing or casing has been broken and removed) are likely to be exported for recycling rather than for reuse and whether the regulation needs to be modified to reflect this situation.
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified states to administer the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste program within the state. Following authorization, the authorized state program operates in lieu of the federal regulations. EPA retains enforcement authority to enforce the authorized state Subtitle C program, although authorized states have primary enforcement authority. EPA also retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, 3017, and 7003. The standards and requirements for state authorizations are found at 40 CFR part 271.
Prior to enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a state with final RCRA authorization administered its hazardous waste program entirely in lieu of EPA administering the federal program in that state. EPA did not issue permits for any facilities in that state, since the state was now authorized to issue RCRA permits. When new, more stringent federal requirements were promulgated, the state was obligated to enact equivalent authorities within specified time frames. However, the new requirements did not take effect in an authorized state until the state adopted the equivalent state requirements.
In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), which was added by HSWA, new requirements and prohibitions imposed under HSWA authority take effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized states. While states must still adopt HSWA related provisions as state law to retain final authorization, EPA implements the HSWA provisions in authorized states, including the issuance of any permits pertaining to HSWA requirements, until the state is granted authorization to do so.
Authorized states are required to modify their programs only when EPA promulgates federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than existing federal requirements.
Because of the federal government's special role in matters of foreign policy, EPA does not authorize states to administer federal import/export functions in any section of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. This promotes national coordination, uniformity, and the expeditious transmission of information between the United States and foreign countries. Although states would not receive authorization to administer the federal government's export functions in today's rule, state programs are still required to adopt provisions in today's rule that are more stringent than existing federal requirements to maintain their equivalency with the federal program. Today's final rule contains amendments to §§ 261.39 and 261.41 that are more stringent. Therefore, states that have adopted these provisions, as well as states that have added CRTs to their universal waste programs under 40 CFR part 273, are required to adopt these amendments. In addition, EPA strongly encourages states to incorporate all import- and export- related requirements into their regulations for the convenience of the regulated community and for completeness, particularly where a state has already incorporated 40 CFR part 262, subparts E and H, the import/export manifest and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) movement document related requirements in § 263.10(d), the import manifest and OECD movement document submittal requirements in §§ 264.12(a)(2), 264.71, 265.12(a)(2), and 265.71, or the management provisions for spent lead-acid batteries in 40 CFR part 266, subpart G. When a state adopts the export provisions in this rule, care should be taken not to replace federal or
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).
EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the “Economic Impacts Assessment for Revisions to the Export Provisions of the Cathode Ray Tube Final Rule.” A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action. Annual costs to CRT exporters and EPA for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements are estimated to range from $9,777 to $17,362 per year. Additionally, CRT exporters will incur a one-time cost of $42,904 in the first year following promulgation of the rule to familiarize themselves with the new CRT rule requirements.
The information collection requirements in this rule will be submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
EPA is finalizing revisions to the notifications under §§ 261.39 and 261.41 that must be submitted to EPA when CRTs are exported for reuse or recycling. The purpose of these revisions is to address certain implementation concerns with the current export provisions of the CRT rule.
Under today's rule, EPA is requiring in the notification for CRTs exported for recycling that the exporter state the name and address of the recycler or recyclers and the estimated quantity of CRTs to be sent to each facility, as well as the names of any alternate recyclers.
Additionally, EPA is requiring notifications for used, intact CRTs exported for reuse to be submitted to cover a 12-month or lesser period. EPA is also requiring additional items of information in the notice, including contact information about the exporter and the destination facility, the frequency or rate at which the CRTs would be exported, the estimated quantity of CRTs expected to be exported, transport information, and a description of the manner in which the used, intact CRTs will be reused in the receiving country. Furthermore, EPA is requiring the exporter to sign a certification statement that the CRTs are intact and fully functioning or capable of being functional after refurbishment and that the used CRTs will be reused or refurbished and reused. EPA believes that this expanded notice will help the Agency determine whether the exported CRTs have been handled as products that are actually reused in the receiving country.
Finally, EPA is also finalizing a requirement that exporters of CRTs that are exported for recycling must submit an annual report to EPA that documents the actual quantity of CRTs in kilograms exported during the previous calendar year. This information will help ensure that the shipments occurred under the terms approved by the receiving country and enables EPA to provide receiving countries with information that may help them to determine the quantity of CRTs that were received in a particular country for recycling.
EPA has carefully considered the burden imposed upon the regulated community by the information collection requirements in today's rule. EPA is confident that the recordkeeping and reporting activities required of respondents under today's rule are necessary and, to the extent possible, has attempted to minimize the burden imposed. EPA believes strongly that if the minimum information collection requirements in today's rule are not met, neither the facilities nor EPA can ensure that CRTs are managed in compliance with the regulations.
EPA estimates the total annual respondent burden for the new paperwork requirements in the rule ranges from 247 to 278 hours, and the annual respondent cost for the new paperwork requirements is approximately $22,235 to $28,492. There are no capital or operations and maintenance costs expected for this collection. The estimated annual hourly burden ranges from 0.15 to 3.52 hours per response for the 152 respondents (depending on the type of notice and whether the respondent is an exporter of CRTs for reuse or recycling). The estimated total annual burden to EPA for administering the rule (e.g., received, review, and process information required under the final rule) ranges from 32 to 53 hours, with a cost of approximately $1,844 to $3,172. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities directly regulated by this final rule are individual CRT exporters. We have determined that approximately 152 CRT exporters will experience an impact of less than 0.1 percent of annual sales as a result of annual compliance costs of the rule.
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has minimized the additional information considered necessary in order to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities.
This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. The total costs of this rule for CRT exporters and EPA are estimated to range from $9,777 to $17,362. Because these direct costs are well below the $100 million annual direct cost threshold, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This rule 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. EPA does not authorize states to administer federal import/export functions in any section of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations because of the federal government's special role in matters of foreign policy.
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. Specifically, this final rule does not have federalism implications because state and local governments do not administer the import/export requirements under RCRA. 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). No tribal governments are known to own or operate businesses that may be affected by this rule. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children residing in the United States. This final rule is intended to improve regulatory efficiency and increase accountability among all parties associated with the export of used CRTs whether sent for recycling or reuse, and does not directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment in the United States.
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 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 determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment in the United States. Rather, this final rule is intended to improve regulatory efficiency and increase accountability among all parties associated with the export of used CRTs, whether for recycling or reuse.
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. 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, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Parts 260 and 261 of title 40, Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939, and 6974.
42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y), and 6838.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(F) The name and address of the recycler or recyclers and the estimated quantity of used CRTs to be sent to each facility, as well as the names of any alternate recyclers.
(x) CRT exporters must file with EPA no later than March 1 of each year, an annual report summarizing the quantities (in kilograms), frequency of shipment, and ultimate destination(s) (
(A) The name, EPA ID number (if applicable), and mailing and site address of the exporter;
(B) The calendar year covered by the report;
(C) A certification signed by the CRT exporter that states:
“I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this and all attached documents and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining this information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.”
(xi) Annual reports must be submitted to the office specified in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section. Exporters must keep copies of each annual report for a period of at least three years from the due date of the report.
(a) CRT exporters who export used, intact CRTs for reuse must send a notification to EPA. This notification may cover export activities extending over a twelve (12) month or lesser period.
(1) The notification must be in writing, signed by the exporter, and include the following information:
(i) Name, mailing address, telephone number, and EPA ID number (if applicable) of the exporter of the used, intact CRTs;
(ii) The estimated frequency or rate at which the used, intact CRTs are to be exported for reuse and the period of time over which they are to be exported;
(iii) The estimated total quantity of used, intact CRTs specified in kilograms;
(iv) All points of entry to and departure from each transit country through which the used, intact CRTs will pass, a description of the approximate length of time the used, intact CRTs will remain in such country, and the nature of their handling while there;
(v) A description of the means by which each shipment of the used, intact CRTs will be transported (e.g., mode of transportation vehicle (air, highway, rail, water, etc.), type(s) of container (drums, boxes, tanks, etc.));
(vi) The name and address of the ultimate destination facility or facilities where the used, intact CRTs will be reused, refurbished, distributed, or sold for reuse and the estimated quantity of used, intact CRTs to be sent to each facility, as well as the name of any alternate destination facility or facilities;
(vii) A description of the manner in which the used, intact CRTs will be reused (including reuse after refurbishment) in the foreign country that will be receiving the used, intact CRTs; and
(viii) A certification signed by the CRT exporter that states:
“I certify under penalty of law that the CRTs described in this notice are intact and fully functioning or capable of being functional after refurbishment and that the used CRTs will be reused or refurbished and reused. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this and all attached documents and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.”
(2) Notifications submitted by mail should be sent to the following mailing address: Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Federal Activities, International Compliance Assurance Division, (Mail Code 2254A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Hand-delivered notifications should be sent to: Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Federal Activities, International Compliance Assurance Division, (Mail Code 2254A), Environmental Protection Agency, William Jefferson Clinton Building, Room 6144, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. In both cases, the following shall be prominently displayed on the front of the envelope: “Attention: Notification of Intent to Export CRTs.”
(b) CRT exporters of used, intact CRTs sent for reuse must keep copies of normal business records, such as contracts, demonstrating that each shipment of exported used, intact CRTs will be reused. This documentation must be retained for a period of at least three years from the date the CRTs were exported. If the documents are written in a language other than English, CRT exporters of used, intact CRTs sent for reuse must provide both the original, non-English version of the normal business records as well as a third-party translation of the normal business records into English within 30 days upon request by EPA.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) released a
Sections 1.7001, 1.7002, 43.01 and 43.11, published at 78 FR 49126, were approved by the OMB on June 4, 2014 (OMB Control Number 3060-0816). Accordingly, the amendments to those sections published at 78 FR 49126, Aug. 13, 2013, are effective June 26, 2014.
Chelsea Fallon, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7991 or
The Report and Order stated that the changes to §§ 1.7001, 1.7002, 43.01 and 43.11 of the Commission's rules, which contain information collection requirements, would be effective upon announcement in the
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with the collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a valid control number. Questions concerning this information collection, 3060-1196, should be directed to Leslie F. Smith, Federal Communications Commission at (202) 418-0217 or
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) extends the freeze of jurisdictional separations category relationships and cost allocation factors in the Commission's rules for three years, through June 30, 2017.
This final rule is effective on June 26, 2014.
Greg Haledjian, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202) 418-1520 or
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order in CC Docket No. 80-286, adopted on June 12, 2014 and released on June 13, 2014. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. The full text of this document may be downloaded at the following Internet address:
1. This Report and Order (Order) extends, through June 30, 2017, the existing freeze of the Federal Communications Commission's (Commission) rules regarding jurisdictional separations. Specifically, the Commission extends the existing freeze of Part 36 category relationships and jurisdictional cost allocation factors.
2. Jurisdictional separations is the process by which incumbent LECs apportion regulated costs between the intrastate and interstate jurisdictions. Incumbent LECs record their costs pursuant to part 32 of the Commission's regulations. These costs are then divided between regulated and unregulated costs pursuant to Part 64 of the Commission's regulations. Incumbent LECs then perform the jurisdictional separations process pursuant to part 36 of the Commission's rules.
3. The jurisdictional separations process itself has two parts. First, incumbent LECs assign regulated costs to various categories of plant and expenses. In certain instances, costs are further disaggregated among service categories. Second, the costs in each category are apportioned between the intrastate and interstate jurisdictions. These jurisdictional apportionments of categorized costs are based upon either a relative use factor, a fixed allocator, or, when specifically allowed in the part 36 rules, by direct assignment.
4. The statute requires the Commission to refer to the Federal-State Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations (Joint Board) any proceeding regarding “the jurisdictional separations of common carrier property and expenses between interstate and intrastate operations” that the Commission institutes pursuant to a notice of proposed rulemaking. In 1997, the Commission initiated a proceeding seeking comment on the extent to which legislative, technological, and market changes warranted comprehensive reform of the separations process. The Commission also invited the State Members of the Joint Board to develop a report that would identify additional issues that should be addressed by the Commission in its comprehensive separations reform effort. The State Members filed a report setting forth additional issues that they believed should be addressed by the Joint Board and proposing an interim freeze, among other things, to reduce the impact of changes in telephone usage patterns and resulting cost shifts from year to year. The Commission noted that the current network infrastructure was vastly different from the network and services used to define the cost categories appearing in the Commission's Part 36 rules.
5. On July 21, 2000, the Joint Board issued its 2000 Separations Recommended Decision, recommending that, until comprehensive reform could be achieved, the Commission: (i) freeze Part 36 category relationships and jurisdictional allocation factors for incumbent LECs subject to price cap regulation (price cap incumbent LECs); and (ii) freeze the allocation factors for incumbent LECs subject to rate-of-return regulation (rate-of-return incumbent LECs). In the 2001 Separations Freeze Order, the Commission generally adopted the Joint Board's recommendation. The Commission concluded that the freeze would provide stability and regulatory certainty for incumbent LECs by minimizing any impacts on separations results that might occur due to circumstances not contemplated by the Commission's Part 36 rules, such as growth in local competition and new technologies. Further, the Commission found that a freeze of the separations process would reduce regulatory burdens on incumbent LECs during the transition from a regulated monopoly to a deregulated, competitive environment in the local telecommunications marketplace. Under the freeze, price cap incumbent LECs calculate: (1) The relationships between categories of investment and expenses within part 32 accounts; and (2) the jurisdictional allocation factors, as of a specific point in time, and then lock or “freeze” those category relationships and allocation factors in place for a set period of time. The carriers use the “frozen” category relationships and allocation factors for their calculations of separations results and therefore are not required to conduct separations studies for the duration of the freeze. Rate-of-return incumbent LECs are only required to freeze their allocation factors, but were given the option of also freezing their category relationships at the outset of the freeze.
6. The Commission ordered that the freeze would be in effect for a five-year period beginning July 1, 2001, or until the Commission completed comprehensive separations reform, whichever came first. In addition, the Commission stated that, prior to the expiration of the separations freeze, the Commission would, in consultation with the Joint Board, determine whether the freeze period should be extended. The Commission further stated that any decision to extend the freeze beyond the five-year period in the 2001 Separations Freeze Order would be based “upon whether, and to what extent, comprehensive reform of separations has been undertaken by that time.”
7. On May 16, 2006, in the 2006 Separations Freeze Extension and Further Notice, 71 FR 29882, the Commission extended the freeze for three years or until comprehensive reform could be completed, whichever came first. The Commission concluded that extending the freeze would provide stability to LECs that must comply with the Commission's jurisdictional separations rules pending further Commission action to reform the part 36 rules, and that more time was needed to study comprehensive reform. The freeze was subsequently extended by one year in 2009, 2010, and 2011 and by two years in 2012.
8. When it extended the freeze in 2009, the Commission referred a number of issues to the Joint Board and asked the Joint Board to prepare a recommended decision. The Commission asked the Joint Board to consider comprehensive jurisdictional separations reform, as well as an interim adjustment of the current jurisdictional separations freeze, and whether, how, and when the Commission's jurisdictional separations rules should be modified. On March 30, 2010, the State Members of the Joint Board released a proposal for interim and comprehensive separations reform. The Joint Board sought comment on the proposal. On September 24, 2010, the Joint Board held a roundtable meeting with consumer groups, industry representatives, and state regulators to discuss interim and comprehensive jurisdictional separations reform. The Joint Board staff conducted an extensive analysis of various approaches to separations reform, and the Joint Board is evaluating that analysis.
9. In addition, in 2011, the Commission comprehensively reformed the universal service and intercarrier compensation systems and proposed additional reforms. The Joint Board is
10. We extend through June 30, 2017, the freeze on part 36 category relationships and jurisdictional cost allocation factors that the Commission adopted in the 2001 Separations Freeze Order. As a result, price cap carriers will use the same relationships between categories of investment and expenses within Part 32 accounts and the same jurisdictional allocation factors that have been in place since the inception of the current freeze on July 1, 2001; rate-of-return carriers will use the same frozen jurisdictional allocation factors, and will (absent a waiver) use the same frozen category relationships if they had opted in 2001 to freeze those.
11. We conclude that extending the freeze will provide stability to carriers that must comply with the Commission's jurisdictional separations rules while the Joint Board continues its analysis of the jurisdictional separations process. The majority of commenters support extending the freeze for at least three years. Significantly, the State Members of the Federal-State Board on Jurisdictional Separations agree with the proposed extension, “based upon our understanding that under the Commission's orders on various forbearance petitions, the States retain the ability to adopt any reasonable allocation of costs between the intrastate and interstate jurisdictions for State ratemaking and other purposes.”
12. NASUCA asserts that extending the freeze, rather than substantively reforming the separations rules, is not in the public interest. Although NASUCA does not support the freeze, per se, it does not advocate for returning to pre-freeze regulations, which would be the consequence of permitting the freeze to expire before new separations rules are in effect. The Joint Board is considering comprehensive separations reform. We find that an extension of the freeze is necessary in the interim to avoid regulatory instability and substantial administrative burdens on carriers. If the Commission allowed the earlier separations rules to return to force, carriers would be required to reinstitute their former separations processes even though many carriers no longer have the necessary employees and systems in place to comply with the old jurisdictional separations process and likely would have to hire or reassign and train employees and redevelop systems for collecting and analyzing the data necessary to perform separations in the prior manner. To require carriers to reinstitute their separations systems “would be unduly burdensome when there is a significant likelihood that there would be no lasting benefit to doing so.” Therefore, we find that a three-year extension is appropriate.
13. The Small Company Coalition recommends a longer extension, until the transition to bill and keep for terminating access is complete, in July 2020. USTelecom recommends an indefinite extension of the freeze, arguing that separations requirements are increasingly irrelevant, and GVNW argues for an unspecified longer extension. We decline to extend the freeze for more than three years, because the Joint Board may recommend specific reforms and the Commission may be able to substantively address separations rule reform well before the bill and keep transition is complete.
14. Pioneer Telephone Cooperative, which has requested a waiver of its cost category relationship freeze, expresses concern that the grant of the freeze extension without simultaneously granting Pioneer's waiver will only perpetuate the misallocation of its expenses and investment. As explained above, we conclude that allowing the freeze to expire would create unnecessary burdens and disruption for carriers. The decision to extend the freeze does not affect the Commission's ability to address pending or future waiver petitions.
15. In the 2014 Separations Freeze Extension FNPRM, we also sought comment on whether to open a filing “window” for rate-of-return incumbent LECs to file waiver requests to unfreeze their jurisdictional separations category relationships. We do not address that in this Order.
16. All of the rules that are adopted in this Order are designed to work in unison to ensure just, reasonable, and fair regulation of jurisdictional separations. However, each of the reforms we undertake in this order serves a particular function toward this goal. Therefore, it is our intent that each of the rules adopted herein shall be severable. If any of the rules are declared invalid or unenforceable for any reason, it is our intent that the remaining rules shall remain in full force and effect.
17. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
18. As discussed above, in 2001 the Commission adopted a Joint Board recommendation to impose an interim freeze of the part 36 category relationships and jurisdictional cost allocation factors, pending comprehensive reform of the part 36 separations rules. The Commission ordered that the freeze would be in effect for a five-year period beginning July 1, 2001, or until the Commission completed comprehensive separations reform, whichever came first. On May 16, 2006, concluding that more time was needed to implement comprehensive separations reform, the Commission extended the freeze for three years or until such comprehensive reform could be completed, whichever came first. On May 15, 2009, the Commission extended the freeze through June 30, 2010, on May 24, 2010, extended the freeze through June 30, 2011, on May 3, 2011, extended the freeze through June 30, 2012, and on May 8, 2012, extended the freeze through June 30, 2104.
19. The purpose of the current extension of the freeze is to allow the Commission and the Joint Board additional time to consider changes that may need to be made to the separations process in light of changes in the law, technology, and market structure of the telecommunications industry without creating the undue instability and administrative burdens that would occur were the Commission to eliminate the freeze.
20. Implementation of the freeze extension will ease the administrative burden of regulatory compliance for LECs, including small incumbent LECs.
21. The Commission will send a copy of the report and order, including a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the report and order and this final certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, and will be published in the
22. This Report and Order does not contain new, modified, or proposed information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new, modified, or proposed information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
23. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
24. We find good cause to make these rule changes effective immediately upon publication in the
25. None.
26. Accordingly,
27.
28.
Jurisdictional separations procedures, Telecommunications.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 36 as follows:
47 U.S.C. Secs. 151, 154(i) and (j), 205, 221(c), 254, 403, —.410, and 1302 unless otherwise noted.
(a) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all local exchange carriers subject to part 36 rules shall apportion costs to the jurisdictions using their study area and/or exchange specific jurisdictional allocation factors calculated during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000, for each of the categories/sub-categories as specified herein. Direct assignment of private line service costs between jurisdictions shall be updated annually. Other direct assignment of investment, expenses, revenues or taxes between jurisdictions shall be updated annually. Local exchange carriers that invest in telecommunications plant categories during the period July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, for which it had no separations allocation factors for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000, shall apportion that investment among the jurisdictions in accordance with the separations procedures in effect as of December 31, 2000 for the duration of the freeze.
(b) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, local exchange carriers subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign costs from the part 32 accounts to the separations categories/sub-categories, as specified herein, based on the percentage relationships of the categorized/sub-categorized costs to their associated part 32 accounts for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000. If a part 32 account for separations purposes is categorized into more than one category, the percentage relationship among the categories shall be utilized as well. Local exchange carriers that invest in types of telecommunications plant during the period July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, for which it had no separations category investment for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000, shall assign such investment to separations categories in accordance with the separations procedures in effect as of December 31, 2000. Local exchange carriers not subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, may elect to be subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section. Such election must be made prior to July 1, 2001. Local exchange carriers electing to become subject to paragraph (b) shall not be eligible to withdraw from such regulation for the duration of the freeze. Local exchange carriers participating in Association tariffs, pursuant to § 69.601 et seq., shall notify the Association prior to July 1, 2001, of such intent to be subject to the provisions of paragraph (b). Local exchange carriers not participating in Association tariffs shall notify the Commission prior to July 1, 2001, of such intent to be subject to the provisions of paragraph (b).
(c) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, any local exchange carrier that sells or otherwise transfers exchanges, or parts thereof, to another carrier's study area shall continue to utilize the factors and, if applicable, category relationships as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(d) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, any local exchange carrier that buys or otherwise acquires exchanges or part thereof, shall calculate new, composite factors and, if applicable, category relationships based on a weighted average of both the seller's and purchaser's factors and category relationships calculated pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. This weighted average should be based on the number of access lines currently being served by the acquiring carrier and the number of access lines in the acquired exchanges.
(e) Any local exchange carrier study area converting from average schedule company status, as defined in § 69.605(c) of this chapter, to cost company status during the period July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, shall, for the first twelve months subsequent to conversion categorize the telecommunications plant and expenses and develop separations allocation factors in accordance with the separations procedures in effect as of December 31, 2000. Effective July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2017, such companies shall utilize the separations allocation factors and account categorization subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section based on the category relationships and allocation factors for the twelve months subsequent to the conversion to cost company status.
(a) * * *
(5) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, study areas subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the average balance of Account 2220, Operator Systems, to the categories/subcategories, as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, based on the relative percentage assignment of the average balance of Account 2220 to these categories/subcategories during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000.
(6) Effective July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall apportion the costs assigned to the categories/subcategories, as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, among the jurisdictions using the relative use measurements for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000 for each of the categories/subcategories specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
(c) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, study areas subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the average balances of Accounts 2210, 2211, and 2212 to Category 2, Tandem Switching Equipment based on the relative percentage assignment of the average balances of Account 2210, 2211, 2212, and 2215 to Category 2, Tandem Switching Equipment during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000.
(d) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall apportion costs in Category 2, Tandem Switching Equipment, among the jurisdictions using the relative number of study area minutes of use, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000. Direct assignment of any subcategory of Category 2 Tandem Switching Equipment between jurisdictions shall be updated annually.
(h) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, study areas subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the average balances of Accounts 2210, 2211, and 2212 to Category 3, Local Switching Equipment, based on the relative percentage assignment of the average balances of Account 2210, 2211, 2212 and 2215 to Category 3, during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000.
(i) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall apportion costs in Category 3, Local Switching Equipment, among the jurisdictions using relative dial equipment minutes of use for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000.
(j) If the number of a study area's access lines increases such that, under paragraph (f) of this section, the weighted interstate DEM factor for 1997 or any successive year would be reduced, that lowered weighted interstate DEM factor shall be applied to the study area's 1996 unweighted interstate DEM factor to derive a new local switching support factor. If the number of a study area's access lines decreases or has decreased such that, under paragraph (f) of this section, the weighted interstate DEM factor for 2010 or any successive year would be raised, that higher weighted interstate DEM factor shall be applied to the study area's 1996 unweighted interstate DEM factor to derive a new local switching support factor.
(b) * * *
(6) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, study areas subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the average balances of Accounts 2230 through 2232 to the categories/subcategories as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section based on the relative percentage assignment of the average balances of Accounts 2230 through 2232 costs to these categories/subcategories during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000.
(c) * * *
(4) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall apportion costs in the categories/subcategories, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section, among the jurisdictions using the relative use measurements or factors, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000. Direct assignment of any subcategory of Category 4.1 Exchange Circuit Equipment to the jurisdictions shall be updated annually.
(e) * * *
(4) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall apportion costs in the categories/subcategories specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section among the jurisdictions using relative use measurements or factors, as specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000. Direct assignment of any subcategory of Category 4.2 Interexchange Circuit Equipment to the jurisdictions shall be updated annually.
(f) * * *
(2) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall
(c) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, local exchange carriers subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the average balance of Account 2310 to the categories, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, based on the relative percentage assignment of the average balance of Account 2310 to these categories during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000.
(c) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall apportion costs in the categories, as specified in § 36.141(b), among the jurisdictions using the relative use measurements or factors, as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000. Direct assignment of any category of Information Origination/Termination Equipment to the jurisdictions shall be updated annually.
(d) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, study areas subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the average balance of Account 2410 to the categories/subcategories, as specified in paragraph (a) through (c) of this section based on the relative percentage assignment of the average balance of Account 2410 to these categories/subcategories during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000.
(g) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall apportion Subcategory 1.3 Exchange Line C&WF among the jurisdictions as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. Direct assignment of subcategory Categories 1.1 and 1.2 Exchange Line C&WF to the jurisdictions shall be updated annually as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall apportion Category 2 Wideband and exchange trunk C&WF among the jurisdictions using the relative number of minutes of use, as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, for the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2000. Direct assignment of any Category 2 equipment to the jurisdictions shall be updated annually.
(c) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall directly assign Category 3 Interexchange Cable and Wire Facilities C&WF where feasible. All study areas shall apportion the non-directly assigned costs in Category 3 equipment to the jurisdictions using the relative use measurements, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, during the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2000.
(b) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall apportion Category 4 Host/Remote message Cable and Wire Facilities C&WF among the jurisdictions using the relative number of study area minutes-of-use kilometers applicable to such facilities, as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000. Direct assignment of any Category 4 equipment to the jurisdictions shall be updated annually.
(d) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall apportion Equal Access Equipment, as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, among the jurisdictions using the relative state and interstate equal access traffic, as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000.
(c) Wideband Message Service revenues from monthly and miscellaneous charges, service connections, move and change charges, are apportioned between state and interstate operations on the basis of the relative number of minutes-of-use in the study area. Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall apportion Wideband Message Service revenues among the jurisdictions using the relative number of minutes of use for the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2000.
(a) Wideband message service revenues from monthly and miscellaneous charges, service connections, move and change charges, are apportioned between state and interstate operations on the basis of the relative number of minutes-of-use in the study area. Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall apportion Wideband Message Service revenues among the jurisdictions using the relative number of minutes of use for the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2000.
The expenses in this account are apportioned among the operations on the basis of an analysis of current billing for a representative period, excluding current billing on behalf of others and billing in connection with intercompany settlements. Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall apportion expenses in this account among the jurisdictions using the analysis during the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2000.
(b) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, study areas subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the balance of Account 6620-Services to the Telephone operator expense classification based on the relative percentage assignment of the balance of Account 6620 to this classification during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000.
(d) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall apportion Telephone operator expenses among the jurisdictions using the relative number of weighted standard work seconds, as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, during the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2000.
(b) * * *
(4) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, study areas subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the balance of Account 6620-Services to the classifications, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section, based on the relative percentage assignment of the balance of Account 6620 to these classifications during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000.
(5) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall apportion Published directory listing expenses using the underlying relative use measurements, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section, during the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2000. Direct assignment of any Publishing directory listing expense to the jurisdictions shall be updated annually.
(a) The expense in this category for the area under study is first segregated on the basis of an analysis of job functions into the following subcategories: End user service order processing; end user payment and collection; end user billing inquiry; interexchange carrier service order processing; interexchange carrier payment and collection; interexchange carrier billing inquiry; and coin collection and administration. Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, study areas subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the balance of Account 6620-Services to the subcategories, as specified in this paragraph (a), based on the relative percentage assignment of the balance of Account 6620 to these categories/subcategories during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000.
(1) * * *
(ix) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, study areas subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the balance of Account 6620-Services to the categories/subcategories, as specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section, based on the relative percentage assignment of the balance of Account 6620 to these categories/subcategories during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000. Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall apportion TWX service order processing expense, as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(viii) of this section among the jurisdictions using relative billed TWX revenues for the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2000. All other subcategories of End-user service order processing expense, as specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (viii) shall be directly assigned.
(2) * * *
(vii) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, study areas subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the balance of Account 6620-Services to the subcategories, as specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section, based on the relative percentage assignment of the balance of Account 6620 to these categories/subcategories during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000. All other subcategories of End User payment and collection expense, as specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (v) of this section, shall be directly assigned.
(3) * * *
(vii) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, study areas subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the balance of Account 6620-Services to the subcategories, as specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section, based on the relative percentage assignment of the balance of Account 6620 to these subcategories during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000. All other subcategories of End user billing inquiry expense, as specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (vi) shall be directly assigned.
(4) * * *
(vii) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, study areas subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the balance of Account 6620-Services to the subcategories, as specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (vi) of this section, based on the relative percentage assignment of the balance of Account 6620 to these subcategories during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000. All subcategories of Interexchange carrier service order processing expense, as specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (vi), shall be directly assigned.
(5) * * *
(vii) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, study areas subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the balance of Account 6620-Services to the subcategories, as specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (vi) of this section, based on the relative percentage assignment of the balance of Account 6620 to these subcategories during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000. All subcategories of Interexchange carrier payment expense, as specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (vi) shall be directly assigned.
(6) * * *
(vii) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, study areas subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the balance of Account 6620-Services to the subcategories, as specified in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (vi) of this section,
(b) * * *
(1) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, study areas subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the balance of Account 6620-Services to the classifications, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, based on the relative percentage assignment of the balance of Account 6620 to those classifications during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000.
* * ** *
(b) * * *
(1) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, study areas subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the balance of Account 6620-Services to the subcategories, as specified in this paragraph (b), based on the relative percentage assignment of the balance of Account 6620 to those subcategories during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000.
(2) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall apportion Toll Ticketing Processing Expense among the jurisdictions using the relative number of toll messages for the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2000. Local Message Process Expense is assigned to the state jurisdiction.
(d) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, study areas subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the balance of Account 6620-Services to the Other billing and collecting expense classification based on the relative percentage assignment of the balance of Account 6620 to those subcategory during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000.
(e) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall apportion Other billing and collecting expense among the jurisdictions using the allocation factor utilized, pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000.
(c) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, study areas subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the balance of Account 6620-Services to the Carrier access charge billing and collecting expense classification based on the relative percentage assignment of the balance of Account 6620 to that classification during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000.
(d) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, all study areas shall apportion Carrier access charge billing and collecting expense among the jurisdictions using the allocation factor, pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, for the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2000.
(a) Effective July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2017, study areas subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the balance of Account 6620-Services to this category based on the relative percentage assignment of the balance of Account 6620 to this category during the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
Through this action NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific sardine off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California. This action is necessary because the non-tribal directed harvest allocation total of 5,446 mt for the interim harvest period of January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2014, has been projected to have been reached. From the effective date of this rule until July 1, 2014, Pacific sardine may be harvested only as part of either the live bait or tribal fishery or incidental to other fisheries; the incidental harvest of Pacific sardine is limited to 40-percent by weight of all fish per trip. Fishing vessels must cease fishing [be at shore and in the process of offloading] at or before the effective date of this closure.
Effective 12:01 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) June 25, 2014 through 11:59 p.m., June 30, 2014.
Joshua Lindsay, West Coast Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4034.
This document announces that based on the best available information recently obtained from the fishery and information on past fishing effort, the non-tribal directed fishing harvest allocation for the interim 2014 harvest period of January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2014, will be reached and therefore directed fishing for Pacific sardine is being closed until the new fishing season starts on July 1, 2014. Fishing vessels must cease fishing [be at shore and in the process of offloading] at or before the effective date of this closure. From the effectiveness of this closure, through June 30, 2014, Pacific sardine may be harvested only as part of either the live bait or tribal fishery or incidental to other fisheries, with the incidental harvest of Pacific sardine limited to 40-percent by weight of all fish caught during a trip.
NMFS manages the Pacific sardine fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast (California, Oregon, and Washington) in accordance with the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Annual specifications published in the
Under 50 CFR 660.509, if the total HG or these apportionment levels for Pacific sardine are reached at any time, NMFS is required to close the Pacific sardine fishery via appropriate rulemaking and the fishery remains closed until it re-opens either per the allocation scheme or the beginning of the next fishing season. In accordance with § 660.509 the Regional Administrator shall publish a notice in the
The above in-season harvest restrictions are not intended to affect the prosecution of the live bait or tribal portions of the Pacific sardine fishery.
This action is required by 50 CFR 660.509 and is exempt from Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866.
NMFS finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) for the closure of the directed harvest of Pacific sardine. For the reasons set forth below, notice and comment procedures are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. For the same reasons, NMFS also finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for this action. This measure responds to the best available information and is necessary for the conservation and management of the Pacific sardine resource. A delay in effectiveness would cause the fishery to exceed the in-season harvest level. These seasonal harvest levels are important mechanisms in preventing overfishing and managing the fishery at optimum yield. The established directed and incidental harvest allocations are designed to allow fair and equitable opportunity to the resource by all sectors of the Pacific sardine fishery and to allow access to other profitable CPS fisheries, such as squid and Pacific mackerel. Many of the same fishermen who harvest Pacific sardine rely on these other fisheries for a significant portion of their income.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule is a companion document to the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) direct final rule (published today in the “Rules and Regulations” section of the
AMS is publishing this amendment as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the agency is contemplated by statute and required by regulation in 7 CFR 1205.510 and anticipates no significant adverse comment. AMS has explained its reasons in the preamble of the direct final rule. If AMS receives no significant adverse comment during the comment period, no further action on this proposed rule will be taken. If, however, AMS receives significant adverse comment, AMS will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. In that case, AMS will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. AMS will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any parties interested in commenting must do so during this comment period.
Comments must be received on or before July 28, 2014.
Written comments may be submitted to the addresses specified below. All comments will be made available to the public. Please do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publically disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines. Comments may be submitted anonymously.
Comments, identified by AMS-CN-13-0101, may be submitted electronically through the
Shethir M. Riva, Chief, Research and Promotion Staff, Cotton and Tobacco Program, AMS, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22406, telephone (540) 361-2726, facsimile (540) 361-1199, or email at
As noted above, in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's
The total value of assessment levied on cotton imports is the sum of two parts. The first part of the assessment is based on the weight of cotton imported—levied at a rate of $1 per bale of cotton, which is equivalent to 500 pounds, or $1 per 226.8 kilograms of cotton. The second part of the import assessment (referred to as the supplemental assessment) is based on the value of imported cotton lint or the cotton contained in imported cotton products—levied at a rate of five-tenths of one percent of the value of domestically produced cotton.
Section 1205.510(b)(2) of the Cotton Research and Promotion Rules and Regulations provides for assigning the calendar year weighted average price received by U.S. farmers for Upland cotton to represent the value of imported cotton. This is so that the assessment on domestically produced cotton and the assessment on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products is the same. The source for the average price statistic is
The current value of imported cotton as published in 2013 in the
An example of the complete assessment formula and how the figures are obtained is as follows:
One bale is equal to 500 pounds.
One kilogram equals 2.2046 pounds.
One pound equals 0.453597 kilograms.
A 500-pound bale equals 226.8 kg. (500 x 0.453597).
$1 per bale assessment equals $0.002000 per pound or $0.2000 cents per pound (1/500) or $0.004409 per kg or $0.4409 cents per kg. (1/226.8).
The 2013 calendar year weighted average price received by producers for
Five tenths of one percent of the average price equals $0.008319 per kg. (1.664 × 0.005).
The total assessment per kilogram of raw cotton is obtained by adding the $1 per bale equivalent assessment of $0.004409 per kg. and the supplemental assessment $0.008319 per kg., which equals $0.012728 per kg.
The current assessment on imported cotton is $0.012876 per kilogram of imported cotton. The revised assessment in this direct final rule is $0.012728, a decrease of $0.000148 per kilogram. This decrease reflects the decrease in the average weighted price of Upland cotton received by U.S. Farmers during the period January through December 2013.
Import Assessment Table in section 1205.510(b)(3) indicates the total assessment rate ($ per kilogram) due for each Harmonized Tariff Schedule number that is subject to assessment. This table must be revised each year to reflect changes in supplemental assessment rates. In this direct final rule, AMS is amending the Import Assessment Table.
AMS believes that these amendments are necessary to assure that assessments collected on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products are the same as those paid on domestically produced cotton. Accordingly, changes reflected in this rule should be adopted and implemented as soon as possible since it is required by regulation.
The amendment proposed by this notice is the same as the amendment contained in the direct final rule. Please refer to the preamble and regulatory text of the direct final rule for further information and the actual text of the amendment. Statutory review and Executive Orders for this proposed rule can be found in the
A 30-day comment period is provided to comment on the changes to the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations proposed herein. This period is deemed appropriate because this rule would decrease the assessments paid by importers under the Cotton Research and Promotion Order. An amendment is required to adjust the assessments collected on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products to be the same as those paid on domestically produced cotton. Accordingly, the change in this rule, if adopted, should be implemented as soon as possible.
7 U.S.C. 2101-2118.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, DOE.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
On June 3, 2014, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) (hereafter the June 2014 SNOPR) in which DOE proposed test procedures for light-emitting diode (LED) lamps. The June 2014 SNOPR defined methods for measuring the lumen output, input power, and relative spectral distribution (to determine correlated color temperature, or CCT). Further, the June 2014 SNOPR proposed a method for calculating the lifetime of LED lamps, and defined the lifetime as the time required for the LED lamp to reach a lumen maintenance of 70 percent (that is, 70 percent of initial light output). Additionally, the June 2014 SNOPR added calculations for lamp efficacy as well as the color rendering index (CRI) of LED lamps. This SNOPR revises DOE's proposed definition for lifetime in the June 2014 SNOPR. The definition of lifetime contained in this document better aligns with the statutory definition of lifetime in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended. DOE also proposes a new definition for time to failure to support the revised definition of lifetime. Finally, this SNOPR discusses other necessary changes to the regulations to support the new and revised definitions.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this SNOPR until August 4, 2014. See section V, “Public Participation,” for details.
Any comments submitted must identify the SNOPR for Test Procedures for LED lamps, and provide docket number EE-2011-BT-TP-0071 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AC67. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section V of this document (Public Participation).
A link to the docket Web page can be found at:
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email:
Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email:
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; “EPCA”) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012)). Part B of title III, which for editorial reasons was redesignated as Part A upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.”
Under EPCA, this program consists of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. This rulemaking proposes test procedures that manufacturers of integrated LED lamps (hereafter referred to as “LED lamps”) would use to meet two requirements, namely, to: (1) Satisfy any future energy conservation standards for general service LED lamps, and (2) meet obligations under labeling requirements for LED lamps promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
First, test procedures in this rulemaking would be used to assess the performance of LED lamps relative to any potential energy conservation standards in a future rulemaking that includes general service LED lamps. DOE is currently developing energy conservation standards for general service lamps (GSLs), a category of lamps that includes general service LED lamps. 78 FR 73737 (Dec. 9, 2013).
Second, this rulemaking supports obligations under labeling requirements promulgated by FTC under section 324(a)(6) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(6)). The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) section 321(b) amended EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(D)) to direct FTC to consider the effectiveness of lamp labeling for power levels or watts, light output or lumens, and lamp lifetime. This rulemaking supports FTC's determination that LED lamps, which had previously not been labeled, require labels under EISA section 321(b) and 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(6) in order to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. 75 FR 41696, 41698 (July 19, 2010).
DOE previously published two
For a more complete discussion of authority and background, see the June 2014 SNOPR. 79 FR 32020.
This SNOPR (hereafter the lifetime SNOPR) builds upon the June 2014 SNOPR, which DOE hereby affirms, except for those provisions that are modified by this supplemental proposal. The lifetime SNOPR proposes to revise the definition of lifetime as it relates to LED lamps. The definition of lifetime contained in this notice better aligns with the EPCA definition of lifetime in 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(P). DOE also proposes a new definition for time to failure to support the revised definition of lifetime. The lifetime SNOPR describes these new definitions and discusses other necessary changes to 10 CFR parts 429 and 430 to support the new and revised definitions.
In the June 2014 SNOPR, DOE proposed to define lifetime of LED lamps as the time at which the lumen output is equal to 70 percent of the initial lumen output. 79 FR at 32029. This definition was to appear in Appendix BB to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, and was to be measured and calculated for each individual sample unit. 79 FR at 32047. DOE also proposed a mechanism to determine the upper limit for the represented value of lifetime for a basic model based on the mean or lower confidence limit of the sample at 10 CFR 429.56(a)(1)(i)(B)(1).
Upon further review, DOE concludes the proposed definition of lifetime should be revised to better align with the EPCA definition of lifetime in 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(P). This statutory definition states that lifetime means the length of operating time of a statistically large group of lamps between first use and failure of 50 percent of the group in accordance with test procedures described in the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) Lighting Handbook-Reference Volume. In addition, DOE proposes to name this metric with a term specific to LED lamps to clarify that this definition only applies to LED lamps.
DOE proposes revising the name of the metric from “lifetime,” to “lifetime of integrated light-emitting diode lamps.” DOE proposes defining the lifetime of integrated light-emitting diode lamps to be as follows: “the length of operating time between first use and failure of 50 percent of the sample units (as defined in § 429.56(a)(1)(i)), in accordance with the test procedures described in section 4.5 of Appendix BB to subpart B of part 430 of this chapter.” DOE's proposed definition is consistent with the statutory definition of lifetime in EPCA. First, DOE specifies a statistically large group of lamps by referring to the represented value requirements in section 429.56(a)(1)(i). Second, the test procedure in section 4.5 of appendix BB to subpart B of part 430 refers to IES LM-79-2008 for test conditions, setup, and measurements. The references to IES LM-79-2008 are consistent with EPCA's lifetime definition, which requires use of the test procedures described by the IES. DOE seeks comment on the proposed definition of lifetime of integrated light-emitting diode lamps.
To support the revised definition of lifetime as applied to LED lamps, DOE also proposes to define time to failure for LED lamps in Appendix BB to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. The revised definition of lifetime refers to the “failure” of a lamp. Failure in the context of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), for example, is the time at which the lamp fully extinguishes and no longer creates light. However, LED lamps typically exhibit gradual degradation of light output over a long
In order to calculate the lifetime of integrated light-emitting diode lamps for a particular basic model, the tester must determine the length of time between first use and failure for each unit in the sample. Therefore, DOE proposes to define time to failure, in section 2.2 of Appendix BB to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, as “the time elapsed between first use and the point at which the lamp reaches 70 percent lumen maintenance as measured in section 4.5 of appendix BB of this subpart.” DOE seeks comment on the proposed definition of time to failure.
To support the revised definition of lifetime and the newly added definition of time to failure, DOE also proposes other modifications to 10 CFR parts 429 and 430. These revisions clarify that the metric “time to failure” would be measured for an individual lamp, while “lifetime of integrated light-emitting diode lamps” is a metric calculated for all sample units collectively. For example, DOE modifies the scope and content of Appendix BB to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 (See Appendix BB at sections 1, 2.2, 4, 4.2.1, 4.5, 4.5.2, 4.5.3, 4.5.4), 10 CFR 430.23 (See section 430.23(dd)(6), and (7)), and 10 CFR 430.25 (See section 430.25(b)) to specify measurement of time to failure, rather than directly measuring lifetime. Then, in proposed 10 CFR 429.56, DOE specifies the calculation of lifetime of integrated light-emitting diode lamps, the metric used for representations based on all sample units collectively (See 429.56(a)(1)(i)(B)(
DOE has concluded that the determinations made pursuant to the various procedural requirements applicable to the June 2014 SNOPR remain unchanged for this lifetime SNOPR. These determinations are set forth in the June 2014 SNOPR. 79 FR 32020, 32040-32044. The additional changes proposed in this lifetime SNOPR (a revised definition of lifetime, a new definition of time to failure, and other supporting modifications) would not be expected to increase testing burden beyond what is specified in the June 2014 SNOPR.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule no later than the date provided in the
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are written in English, free of any defects or viruses, and not secured. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1)
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues:
1. DOE seeks comment on the proposed definition of lifetime of integrated light-emitting diode lamps.
2. DOE seeks comment on the proposed definition of time to failure.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule.
Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend parts 429 and 430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Subchapter D of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
(a)
(i)
(B) For each basic model of integrated light-emitting diode lamp, the minimum number of units tested shall be no less than 10 and the same units must be used for testing all metrics. If more than 10 units are tested as part of the sample, the total number of units must be a multiple of two. For each basic model, a sample of sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that:
(
(
Or,
(
(2) Represented values of input power and standby mode power of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower values must be greater than or equal to the higher of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
Or,
(ii) The upper 99 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 1.01, where:
(3) Represented values of correlated color temperature (CCT) of a basic model must be equal to the mean of the sample, where:
(4) The lifetime of integrated light-emitting diode lamps is calculated by determining the median time to failure of the sample (calculated as the arithmetic mean of the time to failure of the two middle sample units when the numbers are sorted in value order) rounded to the nearest hour. Represented values of lifetime cannot exceed the lifetime of integrated light-emitting diode lamps.
(b) [Reserved]
(c)
(1) The represented value of input power must be rounded to the nearest tenth of a watt.
(2) The represented value of lumen output must be rounded to three significant digits.
(3) The represented value of lamp efficacy must be rounded to the nearest tenths place.
(4) The represented value of correlated color temperature must be rounded to the nearest 100 Kelvin.
(5) The represented value of color rendering index must be rounded to the nearest whole number.
(6) The represented value of lifetime of integrated light-emitting diode lamps must be rounded to the nearest whole hour.
(7) The represented value of standby mode power must be rounded to the nearest tenth of a watt.
42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(1) With respect to general service fluorescent lamps, general service incandescent lamps, and incandescent reflector lamps: Lamps that have essentially identical light output and electrical characteristics—including lumens per watt (lm/W) and color rendering index (CRI).
(2) With respect to integrated light-emitting diode lamps: Lamps that have essentially identical light output and electrical characteristics—including lumens per watt (lm/W), color rendering index (CRI), correlated color temperature (CCT), and lifetime of integrated light-emitting diode lamps.
(3) With respect to faucets and showerheads: Have the identical flow control mechanism attached to or installed within the fixture fittings, or the identical water-passage design features that use the same path of water in the highest flow mode.
(4) With respect to furnace fans: Are marketed and/or designed to be installed in the same type of installation.
(dd)
(2) The lumen output of an integrated light-emitting diode lamp must be measured in accordance with section 3 of Appendix BB of this subpart. Individual unit lumen output must be rounded to three significant digits.
(3) The lamp efficacy of an integrated light-emitting diode lamp must be calculated in accordance with section 3 of Appendix BB of this subpart. Individual unit lamp efficacy must be rounded to the nearest tenths place.
(4) The correlated color temperature of an integrated light-emitting diode lamp must be measured in accordance with section 3 of Appendix BB of this subpart. Individual unit correlated color temperature must be rounded to the nearest 10 Kelvin.
(5) The color rendering index of an integrated light-emitting diode lamp must be measured in accordance with section 3 of Appendix BB of this subpart. Individual unit color rendering index must be rounded to the nearest whole number.
(6) The time to failure of an integrated light-emitting diode lamp must be measured in accordance with section 5 of Appendix BB of this subpart. Individual unit time to failure must be rounded to the nearest hour.
(7) The life (in years) of an integrated light-emitting diode lamp must be calculated by dividing the lifetime of integrated light-emitting diode lamps (see 10 CFR 429.56) by the estimated annual operating hours as specified in 16 CFR 305.15(b)(3)(iii). The life must be rounded to the nearest tenth of a year.
(8) The estimated annual energy cost for an integrated light-emitting diode lamp, expressed in dollars per year, must be the product of the average input power in kilowatts as determined in accordance with appendix BB to this subpart, an electricity cost rate as specified in 16 CFR 305.15(b)(1)(ii), and an estimated average annual use as specified in 16 CFR 305.15(b)(1)(ii). The resulting estimated annual energy cost for an individual unit must be rounded to the nearest cent per year.
(9) The standby mode power must be measured in accordance with section 5 of appendix BB of this subpart. Individual unit standby mode power must be rounded to the nearest tenth of a watt.
(a) Testing for general service fluorescent lamps, general service incandescent lamps, and incandescent reflector lamps must be performed in accordance with appendix R to this subpart. Testing for medium base compact fluorescent lamps must be performed in accordance with appendix W to this subpart. Testing for fluorescent lamp ballasts must be performed in accordance with appendix Q1 to this subpart. This testing, with the exception of lifetime testing of general service incandescent lamps, must be conducted by test laboratories accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) or an accrediting organization recognized by International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC). NVLAP is a program of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce. NVLAP standards for accreditation of laboratories that test are set forth in 15 CFR part 285. The following metrics should be measured by test laboratories accredited by NVLAP or an accrediting organization recognized by International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC):
(1) Fluorescent lamp ballasts: ballast luminous efficiency (BLE);
(2) General service fluorescent lamps: Lamp efficacy, color rendering index;
(3) General service incandescent reflector lamps: Lamp efficacy;
(4) General service incandescent lamps: Lamp efficacy; and
(5) Medium base compact fluorescent lamps: Initial efficacy, lamp life. Testing for BLE may also be conducted by laboratories accredited by Underwriters Laboratories or Council of Canada. Testing for fluorescent lamp ballasts
(b) Testing of integrated light-emitting diode lamps must be performed in accordance with appendix BB of this subpart. Testing must be conducted in test laboratories accredited by NVLAP or an accrediting organization recognized by International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) for the following metrics: Input power, lumen output, lamp efficacy, correlated color temperature, color rendering index, time to failure, and standby mode power. A manufacturer's own laboratory, if accredited, may conduct the testing.
After [Date 180 Days after Publication of Final Rule in the
2.1. The definitions specified in section 1.3 of IES LM-79 except section 1.3(f) (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) apply.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
2.6.
2.7.
In cases where there is a conflict, the language of the test procedure in this appendix takes precedence over IES LM-79 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).
3.1.1. The ambient conditions, power supply, electrical settings, and instrumentation must be established in accordance with the specifications in sections 2.0, 3.0, 7.0, and 8.0 of IES LM-79 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), respectively.
3.1.2. An equal number of integrated LED lamps must be positioned in the base up and base down orientations throughout testing.
3.1.3. The integrated LED lamp must be operated at the rated voltage throughout testing. For an integrated LED lamp with multiple rated voltages including 120 volts, the integrated LED lamp must be operated at 120 volts. If an integrated LED lamp with multiple rated voltages is not rated for 120 volts, the integrated LED lamp must be operated at the highest rated input voltage. Additional tests may be conducted at other rated voltages.
3.1.4. The integrated LED lamp must be operated at maximum input power. If multiple modes occur at the same maximum input power (such as variable CCT or CRI), the manufacturer can select any of these modes for testing; however, all measurements described in section 3 and section 4 must be taken at the same selected mode.
3.2.1. The integrated LED lamp must be stabilized prior to measurement as specified in section 5.0 of IES LM-79 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). The stabilization variation is calculated as [maximum−minimum)/minimum] of at least three readings of the input power and lumen output over a period of 30 minutes, taken 15 minutes apart.
3.2.2. The input power in watts must be measured as specified in section 8.0 of IES LM-79 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).
3.2.3. Lumen output must be measured as specified in section 9.1 and 9.2 of IES LM-79 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). Goniometers must not be used.
3.2.4. CCT must be determined according to the method specified in section 12.0 of IES LM-79 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) with the exclusion of section 12.2 of IES LM-79. Goniometers must not be used.
3.2.5. CRI must be determined according to the method specified in section 12.0 of IES LM-79 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) with the exclusion of section 12.2 of IES LM-79. Goniometers must not be used.
3.2.6. Lamp efficacy must be determined by dividing measured initial lumen output by the measured input power.
In cases where there is a conflict, the language of the test procedure in this appendix takes precedence over IES LM-79 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).
4.2.
4.2.1. There is no minimum test duration requirement for the integrated LED lamp. The test duration is selected by the manufacturer. See section 4.5.3 for instruction on the maximum time to failure.
4.2.2. The test duration only includes time when the integrated LED lamp is energized and operating.
4.2.3. Operating conditions and setup during the test duration other than time during which lumen output measurements are being conducted are specified in section 4.3 of this appendix.
4.3.1. Ambient temperature must be controlled between 15 °C and 40 °C.
4.3.2. The integrated LED lamps must be spaced to allow airflow around each lamp.
4.3.3. The integrated LED lamps must not be subjected to excessive vibration or shock during lamp operation.
4.3.4. Line voltage waveshape must be as described in section 3.1 of IES LM-
4.3.5. Input voltage must be monitored and regulated to within ± 2 percent of the voltage required in section 3.1.3 for the duration of the test.
4.3.6. Electrical settings must be as described in section 7.0 IES LM-79 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).
4.3.7. An equal number of integrated LED lamps must be positioned in the base up and base down orientations throughout testing.
4.3.8. The integrated LED lamp must be operated at maximum input power. If multiple modes occur at the same maximum input power (such as variable CCT and CRI), the manufacturer can select any of these modes for testing. Measurements of all quantities described in sections 3 and 4 of this appendix must be taken at the same selected mode.
4.5.1. Calculate the lumen maintenance of the lamp after the test duration “t” by dividing the final lumen output “x
4.5.2. For lumen maintenance values greater than 1, the time to failure (in hours) is limited to a value less than or equal to four times the test duration.
4.5.3. For lumen maintenance values less than 1 but greater than or equal to 0.7, the time to failure (in hours) is calculated using the following equation:
Where: t is the test duration in hours; x
The maximum time to failure is limited to four times the test duration t.
4.5.4. For lumen maintenance values less than 0.7, including lamp failures that result in complete loss of light output, time to failure is equal to the previously recorded lumen output measurement at a shorter test duration where the lumen maintenance is greater than or equal to 70 percent, and time to failure shall not be calculated in accordance with section 4.5.3 of this appendix.
In cases where there is a conflict, the language of the test procedure in this appendix takes precedence over IES LM-79 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) and IEC 62301 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).
5.1.1. The ambient conditions, power supply, electrical settings, and instrumentation must be established in accordance with the specifications in sections 2.0, 3.0, 7.0, and 8.0 of IES LM-79 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), respectively.
5.1.2. An equal number of integrated LED lamps must be positioned in the base up and base down orientations throughout testing.
5.1.3. The integrated LED lamp must be operated at the rated voltage throughout testing. For an integrated LED lamp with multiple rated voltages, the integrated LED lamp must be operated at 120 volts. If an integrated LED lamp with multiple rated voltages is not rated for 120 volts, the integrated LED lamp must be operated at the highest rated input voltage.
5.2.1. Standby mode power consumption must be measured for integrated LED lamps if applicable.
5.2.2. The integrated LED lamp must be stabilized prior to measurement as specified in section 5.0 of IES LM-79 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). The stabilization variation is calculated as [maximum—minimum)/minimum] of at least three readings of the input power and lumen output over a period of 30 minutes, taken 15 minutes apart.
5.2.3. The integrated LED must be configured in standby mode by sending a signal to the integrated LED lamp instructing it to have zero light output.
5.2.4. The standby mode power in watts must be measured as specified in section 5 of IEC 62301 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Proposed rule.
As part of NCUA's Regulatory Modernization Initiative, the NCUA Board (Board) is proposing to revise two of NCUA's regulations regarding appraisals. Firstly, the Board is proposing to amend NCUA's regulations to eliminate the now duplicative requirement that federal credit unions (FCUs) make available, to any requesting member/applicant, a copy of the appraisal used in connection with that member's application for a loan secured by a first lien on a dwelling. A recent amendment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) Regulation B requires that all creditors, including FCUs, now automatically provide applicants with free copies of all appraisals and other written valuations developed in connection with an application for a loan to be secured by a first lien on a dwelling. Secondly, the proposed rule would amend NCUA's appraisal regulations by expanding the current exemption for certain transactions involving an existing extension of credit. Under the expanded exemption, federally insured credit unions (FICUs) would be able to refinance or modify a real estate-related loan held by the FICU, without having to obtain an appraisal, if there is no advancement of new monies or if there is adequate collateral protection, even with the advancement of new monies.
The proposal would also make a minor technical amendment to the definition of the term “application.” These changes will modernize NCUA's regulations by better aligning them with the modern marketplace, while also reducing costs for FICUs and their members, and removing outdated regulatory requirements.
Comments must be received on or before August 25, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3133-AE36, by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• NCUA Web site:
• Email: Address to
• Fax: (703) 518-6319. Use the subject line described above for email.
• Mail: Address to Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail address.
You can view all public comments on NCUA's Web site at
John H. Brolin, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 or telephone: (703) 518-6438.
NCUA is committed to regulatory modernization, including modifying, streamlining, refining, or repealing outdated rules that are not required by statute and would not jeopardize the safety and soundness of the credit union industry. Each year, NCUA reviews one-third of its regulations for substance and clarity, and provides notice to the public of those regulations under review so that the public may have an opportunity to provide comments. In 2013, NCUA reviewed part 722, along with several other parts of NCUA's regulations.
In addition, a number of commenters requested that NCUA eliminate the duplicative portion of the requirements in § 701.31(c)(5) that mandate that FCUs make available, to any requesting member/applicant, a copy of the appraisal used in connection with that member's application for a loan secured by a first lien on a dwelling. A recent amendment to § 1002.14 of Regulation B by the CFPB requires that all creditors, including FCUs, now automatically provide applicants free copies of all appraisals and other written valuations developed in connection with an application for a loan to be secured by a first lien on a dwelling. As a result of this recent amendment to Regulation B, the requirements of § 701.31(c)(5) in NCUA's regulations and § 1002.14 in Regulation B now overlap with respect to providing copies of appraisals used in connection with an application for a loan secured by a first lien on a dwelling.
In response to the comments received and NCUA's regulatory review, the Board proposes to broaden the scope of § 722.3(a)(5), which exempts certain transactions involving an existing extension of credit from the section's requirement to obtain appraisals, and to narrow the scope of its requirements to provide copies of appraisals under § 701.31(c)(5). In addition, the Board is proposing to make a technical amendment to correct and bring up to date the definition of the term “application” in § 701.31(a)(1).
The Board is proposing to amend § 701.31(c)(5), which requires an FCU to retain the appraisal used in connection with a real estate-related loan application for a period of 25 months and to make a copy of the appraisal available to the applicant upon request. The proposed amendment is in response to recent changes by the CFPB to § 1002.14 of Regulation B.
While the two sections differ slightly in scope and mechanism,
The consumer protections provided by the two sections do not, however, overlap entirely. Under current § 701.31(c)(5), FCUs are required to provide copies of appraisals used in connection with an application for a real estate-related loan, which includes any loan to be secured by a first lien or a subordinate lien on a dwelling.
Proposed § 701.31(c)(5) would require FCUs to make available, to any requesting member/applicant, a copy of the appraisal used in connection with the member's application for a loan to be secured by a subordinate lien on a dwelling. Consistent with the amendment to the first sentence of that section, the second sentence in proposed § 701.31(c)(5) would also be amended to require that the appraisal be available for a period of 25 months after the applicant has received notice from the FCU of the action taken by the credit union on the application for a loan secured by a subordinate lien on a dwelling.
By limiting the requirements to apply only to applications for loans secured by a subordinate lien on a dwelling, NCUA believes the proposed rule would eliminate the duplicative portion of the current requirement while maintaining the current protections provided under § 701.31(c)(5) for FCU member/applicants not covered by new § 1002.14 of Regulation B. The Board requests comment on if there are other real estate-related loan transactions that are covered under current § 1002.14 or current § 701.31(c)(5) that would not be covered if the amendments being made in this proposed rule were finalized. If there are such transactions, the Board requests comment on if those types of transactions should continue to be covered under § 701.31(c)(5). Similarly, the Board requests comment on if there are additional real estate-related loan transactions that would be covered under current § 1002.14 and current § 701.31(c)(5) and that would continue to impose duplicative requirements on credit unions if the amendments being made in this proposed rule are finalized.
Part 722 of NCUA's regulations implements Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA),
Although much of the language is identical, the exemption in § 722.3(a)(5) differs significantly from the analogous appraisal exemption in the Other Banking Agencies' regulations.
NCUA has received a number of comments regarding the lack of parity between NCUA's and the Other Banking Agencies' appraisal exemptions and the added burden of § 722.3(a)(5) on credit unions. Most of the commenters recommend amending § 722.3(a)(5) to match the Other Banking Agencies' appraisal regulations, which they argue would help reduce costs and processing times for members seeking to refinance or modify loans already held by a FICU.
Section 722.3(a)(5) was originally issued in its current form in 1995 as part of a larger final rule making several amendments to NCUA's appraisal regulations.
The financial crisis that began in 2008 left large numbers of financially distressed homeowners owing more on their mortgages than their homes were worth. During this same period, financial institutions across the nation experienced high levels of mortgage loan defaults and foreclosures. Many borrowers were unable to make their mortgage payments because of unemployment or a reduction in income. Others were unable to afford significant payment increases when their adjustable rate mortgages reset, and they were unable to refinance their loans because of declines in their properties' values. Some borrowers who owed more on their mortgages than their homes were worth simply walked away from their homes because they lacked the incentive to keep their mortgage payments current.
In response to the levels of mortgage loan defaults and foreclosures that occurred in the wake of the financial crisis, NCUA issued guidance to credit unions in 2009 regarding providing loan modifications to residential mortgage borrowers who were unable to meet their contractual payment obligations by offering them loan modification options.
Consistent with the positions noted above, the Board believes that extending the appraisal exemption in § 722.3(a)(5) to cover loan modifications and refinancings in distressed housing markets will improve the timeliness and chances for successful modifications and refinancings that could reduce potential losses to FICUs in the future. Obtaining an appraisal can take a significant amount of time, weeks or months depending on demand and the location of the home. Further, the cost of the appraisal itself, which is almost always paid for by the borrower, can stand as a significant impediment to a distressed borrower being able to refinance or obtain a loan modification. Moreover, obtaining a new appraisal is of little value to a credit union when it was the originating lender and the “at risk” loan is still held by the credit union. Accordingly, the Board proposes to amend § 722.3(a)(5).
Proposed § 722.3(a)(5) would exempt a transaction from the appraisal requirement in § 722.3(a), a transaction that involves an existing extension of credit at the lending FICU, provided that: (i) There is no advancement of new monies, other than funds necessary to cover reasonable closing costs; or (ii) there has been no obvious and material change in market conditions or physical aspects of the property that threatens the adequacy of the credit union's real estate collateral protection after the transaction, even with the advancement of new monies. The amendments would provide parity between NCUA and the Other Banking Agencies' exemptions from the requirement to obtain an appraisal for certain transactions involving existing extensions of credit. Current § 722.3(d) would continue to require that transactions exempted from the appraisal requirement under proposed § 722.3(a)(5) be supported by a written estimate of market value.
For clarity, the proposed rule would also make a technical amendment to the definition of the term “application” in § 701.31(a)(1). Current § 701.31(a)(1) defines the term “application” for purposes of part 701 as carrying the same “meaning of that term as defined in 12 CFR 1002.2(f) (Regulation B)” and then provides a parenthetical quoting the text of the Regulation B definition of application, which has since been revised.
To avoid the possibility of a similar situation arising in the future, NCUA proposes to remove the parenthetical quote in § 701.31(a)(1) and maintain just the cross citation to the definition of “application” in Regulation B. Proposed § 701.31(a)(1) would provide that for purposes of part 701 the term “application” carries the meaning of that term as defined in 12 CFR 1002.2(f)
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or increases an existing burden.
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an independent regulatory agency, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. The proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has, therefore, determined that this proposal does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
NCUA has determined that this proposed rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of § 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
Advertising, Aged, Civil rights, Credit, Credit unions, Fair housing, Individuals with disabilities, Insurance, Marital status discrimination, Mortgages, Religious discrimination, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination.
Appraisals, Credit unions, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed above, the NCUA Board proposes to amend 12 CFR parts 701 and 722 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1761a, 1761b, 1766, 1767, 1782, 1784, 1786, 1787, 1789. Section 701.6 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 3717. Section 701.31 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1601
12 U.S.C. 1766, 1789 and 3339. Section 722.3(f) is also issued under 15 U.S.C. 1639h.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Proposed rule.
The NCUA Board (“Board”) proposes to amend its regulations regarding the treatment by the Board, as liquidating agent or conservator (the “liquidating agent” or “conservator,” respectively) of a federally insured credit union (“FICU”) of financial assets transferred by the credit union in connection with a securitization or a participation. The proposed rule continues the safe harbor for financial assets transferred in connection with securitizations and participations in which the financial assets were transferred in compliance with the existing regulation and defines the conditions for safe harbor protection for securitizations and participations for which transfers of financial assets would be made after the effective date of this proposed rule.
Comments must be received on or before August 25, 2014.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (please send comments by one method only):
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• NCUA Web site:
• Email: Address to
• Fax: (703) 518-6319. Use the subject line described above for email.
• Mail: Address to Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail address.
Dale Klein, Senior Capital Markets Specialist, Office of Examination and Insurance, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-6360; or Lisa Henderson, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-6540.
In 2000, the Board clarified the scope of its statutory authority as conservator or liquidating agent to disaffirm or repudiate contracts of a FICU with respect to transfers of financial assets by a FICU in connection with a securitization or participation when it adopted a regulation codified at 12 CFR 709.10 (the “2000 Rule”). The 2000 Rule provides that a conservator or liquidating agent will not use its statutory authority to disaffirm or repudiate contracts to reclaim, recover, or recharacterize as property of a FICU or the liquidation estate any financial assets transferred by the FICU in connection with a securitization or in the form of a participation, provided that such transfer meets all conditions for sale accounting treatment under generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”).
The 2000 Rule provided a “safe harbor” by confirming “legal isolation” if all other standards for off balance sheet accounting treatment, along with some additional conditions focusing on the enforceability of the transaction, were met by the transfer in connection with a securitization or a participation. Satisfaction of “legal isolation” was vital to securitization transactions because of the risk that the pool of financial assets transferred into the securitization trust could be recovered in bankruptcy or in a credit union liquidation. Generally, to satisfy the legal isolation condition, the transferred financial assets must have been presumptively placed beyond the reach of the transferor, its creditors, a bankruptcy trustee, or in the case of a FICU, NCUA as conservator or liquidating agent. The 2000 Rule, thus, addressed only purported sales which met the conditions for off balance sheet accounting treatment under GAAP. However, in recent years, the implementation of new accounting rules has created uncertainty for potential securitization participants.
In 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) finalized modifications to GAAP through Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 166, (now codified in FASB Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 860, Transfers and Servicing) and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 167 (now codified in FASB ASC Topic 810, Consolidation) (together, the “2009 GAAP Modifications”). The 2009 GAAP Modifications made changes that affect whether a special purpose entity (“SPE”) must be consolidated for financial reporting purposes, thereby subjecting many SPEs to GAAP consolidation requirements. These accounting changes may require a FICU to consolidate an issuing entity to which financial assets have been transferred for securitization on to its balance sheet for financial reporting purposes primarily because an affiliate of the FICU retains control over the financial assets. Given the 2009 GAAP Modifications, legal and accounting treatment of a transaction may no longer be aligned. As a result, the safe harbor provision of the 2000 Rule may not apply to a transfer in connection with a securitization that does not qualify for off balance sheet accounting treatment.
FASB ASC Topic 860 also affects the treatment of participation interests transferred by a FICU, in that it defines participating interests as pari-passu pro-rata interests in financial assets, and subjects the sale of a participation interest to the same conditions as the sale of financial assets. FASB ASC Topic 860 provides that transfers of participation interests that do not qualify for sale treatment will be viewed as secured borrowings. While the GAAP modifications have some effect on participations, most participations are likely to continue to meet the conditions for sale accounting treatment under GAAP.
In 2005, Congress enacted Section 207(c)(13)(C)
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has issued proposed and final rules to resolve the issues raised by the 2009 GAAP modifications and parallel 2005 changes to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
The Board believes that several of the issues of concern for securitization investors and loan participants regarding the impact of the 2009 GAAP Modifications on the eligibility of transfers of financial assets for safe harbor protection can be addressed by clarifying the position of the conservator or liquidating agent under established law. Under Section 207(c)(12) of the FCU Act,
A conservator or liquidating agent generally makes a determination of what constitutes the property of a FICU based on the books and records of the FICU. If a securitization is reflected on the books and records of a FICU for accounting purposes, the conservator or liquidating agent would evaluate all facts and circumstances existing at the time of conservatorship or liquidation, as applicable, to determine whether a transaction is a sale under applicable state law or a secured borrowing. Given the 2009 GAAP Modifications, there may be circumstances in which a sale transaction will continue to be reflected on the books and records of the FICU because the FICU or a credit union service organization controlled by the FICU continues to exercise control over the assets either directly or indirectly. The proposed rule would provide comfort that conforming securitizations which do not qualify for off balance sheet treatment would have access to the assets in a timely manner irrespective of whether a transaction is viewed as a legal sale.
If a transfer of financial assets by a FICU to an issuing entity in connection with a securitization is not characterized as a sale, the securitized assets would be viewed as subject to a perfected security interest. This is significant because the conservator or liquidating agent is prohibited by statute from avoiding a legally enforceable or perfected security interest, except where such an interest is taken in contemplation of insolvency or with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the institution or the creditors of such institution.
Thus, for securitizations that are consolidated on the books of a FICU, the proposed rule would provide a meaningful safe harbor irrespective of the legal characterization of the transfer. There are two situations in which consent to expedited access to transferred assets would be given—(i) monetary default under a securitization by the conservator or liquidating agent or (ii) repudiation of the securitization agreements by the conservator or liquidating agent. The proposed rule provides that in the event of a monetary default under the securitization documents and the default continues for a period of ten business days after written notice of the default, the conservator or liquidating agent will be deemed to consent pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1787(c)(13)(C) to the exercise of contractual rights under the documents on account of such monetary default, and such consent shall constitute satisfaction in full of obligations of the FICU and the conservator or liquidating agent to the holders of the securitization obligations.
The proposed rule also provides that, in the event the conservator or liquidating agent repudiates the securitization asset transfer agreement, the conservator or liquidating agent shall have the right to discharge the lien on the financial assets included in the securitization by paying damages in an amount equal to the par value of the obligations in the securitization on the date of the appointment of the conservator or liquidating agent, less any principal payments made to the date of repudiation. If such damages are not paid within ten business days of repudiation, NCUA will be deemed to consent pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1787(c)(13)(C) to the exercise of contractual rights under the securitization agreements.
The proposed rule would also confirm that, if the transfer of the assets is viewed as a sale for accounting purposes (and thus the assets are not reflected on the books of a FICU), as the conservator or liquidating agent would not reclaim, recover, or recharacterize as property of the FICU or the liquidation estate assets of a securitization through repudiation or otherwise, but only if the transactions comply with the requirements set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the proposed rule. The treatment of off balance sheet transfers of the proposed rule is consistent with the safe harbor under the 2000 Rule.
Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1787(c)(13)(C), no person may exercise any right or
The proposed rule would replace the 2000 Rule. Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule sets forth definitions of terms used in the proposed rule. It retains many of the definitions used in the 2000 Rule but modifies or adds definitions to the extent necessary to accurately reflect current industry practice in securitizations. Pursuant to these definitions, the safe harbor does not apply to certain government sponsored enterprises (“Specified GSEs”), affiliates of certain such enterprises, or any entity established or guaranteed by those GSEs. In addition, the proposed rule is not intended to apply to the Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”) or Ginnie Mae-guaranteed securitizations. When Ginnie Mae guarantees a security, the mortgages backing the security are assigned to Ginnie Mae, an entity owned entirely by the United States government. Ginnie Mae's statute contains broad authority to enforce its contract with the lender/issuer and its ownership rights in the mortgages backing Ginnie Mae-guaranteed securities. In the event that an entity otherwise subject to the proposed rule issues both guaranteed and non-guaranteed securitizations, the securitizations guaranteed by a Specified GSE are not subject to the proposed rule.
Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule imposes conditions to the availability of the safe harbor for transfers of financial assets to an issuing entity in connection with a securitization. These conditions make a clear distinction between the conditions imposed on residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) from those imposed on securitizations for other asset classes. In the context of a conservatorship or liquidation, the conditions applicable to all securitizations will improve overall transparency and clarity through disclosure and documentation requirements along with ensuring effective incentives for prudent lending by requiring that the payment of principal and interest be based primarily on the performance of the financial assets and by requiring retention of a share of the credit risk in the securitized loans.
The conditions applicable to RMBS are more detailed and include additional capital structure, disclosure, documentation and compensation requirements as well as a requirement for the establishment of a reserve fund. These requirements are intended to address the factors that caused significant losses in RMBS securitization structures as demonstrated in the recent crisis. Confidence can be restored in RMBS markets only through greater transparency and other structures that support sustainable mortgage origination practices and require increased disclosures. These standards respond to investor demands for greater transparency and alignment of the interests of parties to the securitization. In addition, they are generally consistent with industry efforts while taking into account legislative and regulatory initiatives.
For all securitizations, the benefits of the proposed rule should be available only to securitizations that are readily understood by the market, increase liquidity of the financial assets, and reduce consumer costs. Consistent with the Security and Exchange Commission's (“SEC's”) new Regulation AB, the documents governing the securitization will be required to provide that there be financial asset level disclosure as appropriate to the securitized financial assets for any re-securitizations (securitizations supported by other securitization obligations). These disclosures must include full disclosure of the obligations, including the structure and the assets supporting each of the underlying securitization obligations, and not just the obligations that are transferred in the re-securitization. This requirement applies to all re-securitizations, including static re-securitizations as well as managed collateralized debt obligations.
The proposed rule provides that securitizations that are unfunded or synthetic transactions are not eligible for expedited consent. To support sound lending, the documents governing all securitizations must require that payments of principal and interest on the obligations be primarily dependent on the performance of the financial assets supporting the securitization and that such payments not be contingent on market or credit events that are independent of the assets supporting the securitization, except for interest rate or currency mismatches between the financial assets and the obligations to investors.
For RMBS only, the proposed rule limits the capital structure of the securitization to six tranches or fewer to discourage complex and opaque structures. The most senior tranche could include time-based sequential pay or planned amortization and companion sub-tranches, which are not viewed as separate tranches for the purpose of the six tranche requirement. This condition will not prevent an issuer from creating the economic equivalent of multiple tranches by re-securitizing one or more tranches, so long as they meet the conditions set forth in the rule, including adequate disclosure in connection with the re-securitization. In addition, RMBS cannot include leveraged tranches that introduce market risks (such as leveraged super senior tranches). Although the financial assets transferred into an RMBS will be permitted to benefit from asset level credit support, such as guarantees (including guarantees provided by governmental agencies, private companies, or government-sponsored enterprises), co-signers, or insurance, the RMBS cannot benefit from external credit support at the issuing entity or pool level. It is intended that guarantees permitted at the asset level include guarantees of payment or collection, but not credit default swaps or similar items. The temporary payment of principal and interest, however, can be supported by liquidity facilities. These conditions are designed to limit both the complexity and the leverage of an RMBS and therefore the systemic risks introduced by them in the market. In addition, the proposed rule provides that the securitization obligations can be enhanced by credit support or guarantees provided by Specified GSEs.
In formulating the proposed rule, NCUA was mindful of the need to permit innovation and accommodate financing needs, and thus attempted to strike a balance between permitting multi-tranche structures for RMBS transactions, on the one hand, and promoting readily understandable securitization structures and limiting overleveraging of residential mortgage assets, on the other hand.
NCUA is of the view that permitting pool level, external credit support in an RMBS can lead to overleveraging of assets, as investors might focus on the credit quality of the credit support provider as opposed to the sufficiency of the financial asset pool to service the securitization obligations. However, the proposed rule permits pool level credit support by Specified GSEs.
Finally, although the proposed rule excludes unfunded and synthetic securitizations from the safe harbor, NCUA does not view the inclusion of existing credit lines that are not fully drawn in a securitization as causing such securitization to be an “unfunded securitization.” The provision is intended to emphasize that the proposed rule applies only where there is an actual transfer of financial assets. In addition, to the extent an unfunded or synthetic transaction qualifies for treatment as a qualified financial contract under Section 207(c) of the FCU Act, it would not need the benefits of the safe harbor provided in the proposed rule in an NCUA liquidation.
For all securitizations, disclosure serves as an effective tool for increasing the demand for high quality financial assets and thereby establishing incentives for robust financial asset underwriting and origination practices. By increasing transparency in securitizations, the proposed rule would enable investors to decide whether to invest in a securitization based on full information with respect to the quality of the asset pool and thereby provide additional liquidity only for sustainable origination practices.
The data must enable investors to analyze the credit quality for the specific asset classes that are being securitized. The documents governing securitizations must, at a minimum, require disclosure for all issuances to include the types of information required under current Regulation AB or any successor disclosure requirements with the level of specificity that applies to public issuances, even if the obligations are issued in a private placement or are not otherwise required to be registered.
The documents governing securitizations that will qualify under the proposed rule must require disclosure of the structure of the securitization and the credit and payment performance of the obligations, including the relevant capital or tranche structure and any liquidity facilities and credit enhancements. The disclosure must be required to include the priority of payments and any specific subordination features, as well as any waterfall triggers or priority of payment reversal features. The disclosure at issuance will also be required to include the representations and warranties made with respect to the financial assets and the remedies for breach of such representations and warranties, including any relevant timeline for cure or repurchase of financial assets, and policies governing delinquencies, servicer advances, loss mitigation and write offs of financial assets. The documents must also require that periodic reports provided to investors include the credit performance of the obligations and financial assets, including periodic and cumulative financial asset performance data, modification data, substitution and removal of financial assets, servicer advances, losses that were allocated to each tranche and remaining balance of financial assets supporting each tranche as well as the percentage coverage for each tranche in relation to the securitization as a whole. Where appropriate for the type of financial assets included in the pool, reports must also include asset level information that may be relevant to investors (e.g. changes in occupancy, loan delinquencies, defaults, etc.). NCUA recognizes that for certain asset classes, such as credit card receivables, the disclosure of asset level information is less informative and, thus, will not be required.
The securitization documents must also require disclosure to investors of the nature and amount of compensation paid to any mortgage or other broker, the servicer(s), rating agency or third-party advisor, and the originator or sponsor, and the extent to which any risk of loss on the underlying financial assets is retained by any of them for such securitization. The documents must also require disclosure of changes to this information while obligations are outstanding. This disclosure should enable investors to assess potential conflicts of interests and how the compensation structure affects the quality of the assets securitized or the securitization as a whole.
For RMBS, loan level data as to the financial assets securing the mortgage loans, such as loan type, loan structure, maturity, interest rate and location of property, will also be required to be disclosed by the sponsor. Sponsors of securitizations of residential mortgages will be required to affirm compliance in all material respects with applicable statutory and regulatory standards for origination of mortgage loans. None of the disclosure conditions should be construed as requiring the disclosure of personally identifiable information of obligors or information that would violate applicable privacy laws. The proposed rule also requires sponsors to disclose a third party due diligence report on compliance with such standards and the representations and warranties made with respect to the financial assets.
Finally, the proposed rule requires that the securitization documents require the disclosure by servicers of any ownership interest of the servicer or any affiliate of the servicer in other whole loans secured by the same real property that secures a loan included in the financial asset pool. This provision does not require disclosure of interests held by servicers or their affiliates in the securitization securities. This provision is intended to give investors information to evaluate potential servicer conflicts of interest that might impede the servicer's actions to maximize value for the benefit of investors.
For all securitizations, the operative agreements are required to use as appropriate available standardized documentation for each available asset class. It is not possible to define in advance when use of standardized documentation will be appropriate, but certainly when there is general market use of a form of documentation for a particular asset class, or where a trade group has formulated standardized documentation generally accepted by the industry, such documentation must be used.
The proposed rule also requires that the securitization documents define the contractual rights and responsibilities of the parties, including but not limited to representations and warranties, ongoing disclosure requirements and any measures to avoid conflicts of interest. The documents are also required to provide authority for the parties to
Additional conditions apply to RMBS to address a significant issue that has been demonstrated in the mortgage crisis by requiring that servicers have the authority to mitigate losses on mortgage loans consistent with maximizing the net present value of the mortgages. Therefore, for RMBS, contractual provisions in the servicing agreement must provide servicers with the authority to modify loans to address reasonably foreseeable defaults and to take other action to maximize the value and minimize losses on the securitized financial assets. The documents must require servicers to apply industry best practices related to asset management and servicing.
The RMBS documents may not give control of servicing discretion to a particular class of investors. The documents must require that the servicer act for the benefit of all investors rather for the benefit of any particular class of investors. Consistent with the forgoing, the documents must require the servicer to commence action to mitigate losses no later than ninety days after an asset first becomes delinquent unless all delinquencies on such asset have been cured. A servicer must also be required to maintain sufficient records of its actions to permit appropriate review of its actions.
NCUA believes that a prolonged period of servicer advances in a market downturn misaligns servicer incentives with those of the RMBS investors. Servicing advances also serve to aggravate liquidity concerns, exposing the market to greater systemic risk. Occasional advances for late payments, however, are beneficial to ensure that investors are paid in a timely manner. To that end, the servicing agreement for RMBS must not require the primary servicer to advance delinquent payments of principal and interest by borrowers for more than three payment periods unless financing or reimbursement facilities to fund or reimburse the primary servicers are available. However, such facilities shall not be dependent for repayment on foreclosure proceeds.
The compensation requirements of the proposed rule apply only to RMBS. Due to the demonstrated issues in the compensation incentives in RMBS, in this asset class the proposed rule seeks to realign compensation to parties involved in the rating and servicing of residential mortgage securitizations.
The securitization documents are required to provide that any fees payable credit rating agencies or similar third-party evaluation companies must be payable in part over the five year period after the initial issuance of the obligations based on the performance of surveillance services and the performance of the financial assets, with no more than sixty percent of the total estimated compensation due at closing. Thus payments to rating agencies must be based on the actual performance of the financial assets, not their ratings.
A second area of concern is aligning incentives for proper servicing of the mortgage loans. Therefore, the documents must require that compensation to servicers must include incentives for servicing, including payment for loan restructuring or other loss mitigation activities, which maximizes the net present value of the financial assets in the RMBS.
To provide further incentives for quality origination practices, several conditions address origination and retention requirements for all securitizations. For all securitizations, the sponsor must retain an economic interest in a material portion, defined as not less than five percent, of the credit risk of the financial assets.
The proposed rule requires that RMBS securitization documents require that a reserve fund be established in an amount equal to at least five percent of the cash proceeds due to the sponsor and that this reserve be held for twelve months to cover any repurchases required for breaches of representations and warranties. This reserve fund will ensure that the sponsor bears a significant risk for poorly underwritten loans during the first year of the securitization. In addition, the securitization documents must include a representation that residential mortgage loans in an RMBS have been originated in all material respects in compliance with statutory, regulatory and originator underwriting standards in effect at the time of origination.
NCUA believes that requiring the sponsor to retain an economic interest in the credit risk relating to each credit tranche or in a representative sample of financial assets will help ensure quality origination practices. A risk retention requirement that did not cover all types of exposure would not be sufficient to create an incentive for quality underwriting at all levels of the securitization. The recent economic crisis made clear that, if quality underwriting is to be assured, it will require true risk retention by sponsors, and that the existence of representations and warranties or regulatory standards for underwriting will not alone be sufficient.
Paragraph (c) of the proposed rule includes general conditions for securitizations and the transfer of financial assets. These conditions also include requirements that are consistent with good financial institution practices.
The transaction should be an arms-length, bona fide securitization transaction and the documents must limit sales to credit union service organizations in which the sponsor credit union has an interest (other than a wholly-owned credit union service organization consolidated for accounting and capital purposes with the credit union), and insiders of the sponsor. The securitization agreements must be in writing, approved by the board of directors of the credit union or its loan committee (as reflected in the minutes of a meeting of the board of directors or committee), and have been, continuously, from the time of execution, in the official record of the credit union. The securitization also must have been entered into in the ordinary course of business, not in contemplation of insolvency and with no intent to hinder, delay or defraud the credit union or its creditors.
The proposed rule applies only to transfers made for adequate consideration. The transfer and/or security interest need to be properly perfected under the UCC or applicable state law. NCUA anticipates that it will be difficult to determine whether a transfer complying with the proposed rule is a sale or a security interest, and therefore expects that a security interest will be properly perfected under the UCC, either directly or as a backup.
The governing documents must require that the sponsor separately identify in its financial asset data bases the financial assets transferred into a securitization and maintain an electronic or paper copy of the closing documents in a readily accessible form, and that the sponsor maintain a current list of all of its outstanding securitizations and issuing entities, and the most recent SEC Form 10-K or other periodic financial report for each securitization and issuing entity. The documents must also provide that if acting as servicer, custodian or paying agent, the sponsor is not permitted to commingle amounts received with respect to the financial assets with its own assets except for the time necessary to clear payments received, and in event for more than two business days. The documents must require the sponsor to make these records available to NCUA promptly upon request. This requirement will facilitate the timely fulfillment of the conservator's or liquidating agent's responsibilities upon appointment and will expedite the conservator's or liquidating agent's analysis of securitization assets. This will also facilitate the conservator's or liquidating agent's analysis of the credit union's assets and determination of which assets have been securitized and are therefore potentially eligible for expedited access by investors.
In addition, the proposed rule requires that the transfer of financial assets and the duties of the sponsor as transferor be evidenced by an agreement separate from the agreement governing the sponsor's duties, if any, as servicer, custodian, paying agent, credit support provider or in any capacity other than transferor.
Paragraph (d)(1) of the proposed rule continues the safe harbor provision that was provided by the 2000 Rule with respect to participations so long as the participation satisfies the conditions for sale accounting treatment set forth by generally accepted accounting principles. In addition, last-in first-out participations are specifically included in the safe harbor, provided that they satisfy requirements for sale accounting treatment other than the pari-passu, proportionate interest requirement that is not satisfied solely as a result of the last-in first-out structure.
Paragraph (d)(2) of the Rule addresses transfers of financial assets made in connection with a securitization for which transfers of financial assets are made after the effective date of this rule or securitizations from a master trust or revolving trust established after the date of adoption of this rule, that (in each case) satisfy the conditions for sale accounting treatment under GAAP in effect for reporting periods after November 15, 2009. For such securitizations, NCUA as conservator or liquidating agent will not, in the exercise of its statutory authority to disaffirm or repudiate contracts, reclaim, recover, or recharacterize as property of the institution or the liquidation estate any such transferred financial assets, provided that such securitizations comply with the conditions set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the proposed rule.
Paragraph (d)(3) of the Rule addresses transfers of financial assets in connection with a securitization for which transfers of financial assets were made after the effective date of this rule or securitizations from a master trust or revolving trust established after the date of adoption of the rule, that (in each case) satisfy the conditions set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c), but where the transfer does not satisfy the conditions for sale accounting treatment under GAAP in effect for reporting periods after November 15, 2009.
Paragraph (d)(3)(i) provides that if the conservator or liquidating agent is in monetary default due to its failure to pay or apply collections from the financial assets received by it in accordance with the securitization documents, and remains in monetary default for ten business days after actual delivery of a written notice to the conservator or liquidating agent requesting exercise of contractual rights because of such default, the conservator or liquidating agent consents to the exercise of such contractual rights, including any rights to obtain possession of the financial assets or the exercise of self-help remedies as a secured creditor, provided that no involvement of the conservator or liquidating agent is required, other than consents, waivers or the execution of transfer documents reasonably requested in the ordinary course of business in order facilitate the exercise of such contractual rights. This paragraph also provides that the consent to the exercise of such contractual rights shall serve as full satisfaction for all amounts due.
Paragraph (d)(3)(ii) provides that, if the conservator or liquidating agent gives a written notice of repudiation of the securitization agreement pursuant to which assets were transferred and does not pay the damages due by reason of such repudiation within ten business days following the effective date of the notice, the conservator or liquidating agent consents to the exercise of any contractual rights, including any rights to obtain possession of the financial assets or the exercise of self-help remedies as a secured creditor, provided that no involvement of the conservator or liquidating agent is required other than consents, waivers or the execution of transfer documents reasonably requested in the ordinary course of business in order facilitate the exercise of such contractual rights. Paragraph 3(d)(ii) also provides that the damages due for these purposes shall be an amount equal to the par value of the obligations outstanding on the date of liquidation less any payments of principal received by the investors through the date of repudiation, plus unpaid, accrued interest through the date of repudiation to the extent actually received through payments on the financial assets received through the date of repudiation, and that upon receipt of such payment all liens on the financial assets created pursuant to the securitization documents shall be released.
In computing amounts payable as repudiation damages, consistent with the FCU Act, the conservator or liquidating agent will not give effect to any provisions of the securitization documents increasing the amount payable based on the appointment of as the conservator or liquidating agent.
Paragraph (e) provides that prior to repudiation or, in the case of monetary default, prior to the effectiveness of the consent referred to in paragraph (d)(3)(i), the conservator or liquidating agent consents to the making of, or if acting as servicer agrees to make, required payments to the investors during the stay period imposed by 12 U.S.C. 1787(c)(13)(C). The proposed rule also provides that the conservator or liquidating agent consents to any servicing activity required in furtherance of the securitization (subject to its rights to repudiate the servicing agreements), in connection with securitizations that meet the conditions set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the proposed rule.
Paragraph (f) requires that any party requesting consent pursuant to paragraph (d)(3), provide notice to the conservator or liquidating agent, together with a statement of the basis upon which the request is made, together with copies of all documentation supporting the request. This includes a copy of the applicable agreements (such as the transfer agreement and the security agreement) and of any applicable notices under the agreements.
Paragraph (g) provides that the conservator or liquidating agent will not seek to avoid an otherwise legally enforceable agreement that is executed by a FICU in connection with a securitization solely because the agreement does not meet the “contemporaneous” requirement of 12 U.S.C. 1787(b)(9) and 1788(a)(3).
Paragraph (h) of the proposed rule provides that the consents set forth in the proposed rule will not act to waive or relinquish any rights granted to NCUA, the conservator, or the liquidating agent, in any capacity, pursuant to any other applicable law or any agreement or contract except as specifically set forth in the proposed rule, and nothing contained in the section will alter the claims priority of the securitized obligations.
Paragraph (i) provides that except as specifically set forth in the proposed rule, the proposed rule does not authorize, and shall not be construed as authorizing the attachment of any involuntary lien upon the property of the conservator or liquidating agent. The proposed rule should not be construed as waiving, limiting or otherwise affecting the rights or powers of NCUA, the conservator, or the liquidating agent to take any action or to exercise any power not specifically mentioned, including but not limited to any rights, powers or remedies of the conservator or the liquidating agent regarding transfers taken in contemplation of the FICU's insolvency or with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud the FICU, or the creditors of such FICU, or that is a fraudulent transfer under applicable law.
The right to consent under 12 U.S.C. 1787(c)(13)(C) may not be assigned or transferred to any purchaser of property from a conservator or liquidating agent, other than to a conservator or bridge credit union. The rule can be repealed by NCUA upon 30 days notice provided in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis of any significant economic impact any proposed regulation may have on a substantial number of small entities (primarily those under $50 million in assets).
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or increases an existing burden.
The information collection requirements are related to federal security filings, which NCUA estimates will take a total of 83.5 hours per year to complete. As NCUA further estimates that only one FCU will undertake asset securitization activities, the annual paperwork burden is 83.5 hours.
NCUA considers comments by the public on this proposed collection of information in:
• Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NCUA, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• evaluating the accuracy of NCUA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• minimizing the burden of 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;
The PRA requires OMB to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in the proposed regulation between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Comments on the proposed information collection requirements should be sent to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: NCUA Desk Officer, with a copy to Tracy Crews at the National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. The proposed rule does 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. NCUA has, therefore, determined that this proposal does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
NCUA has determined that this proposed rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of § 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
Credit unions, Liquidations.
For the reasons discussed above, the National Credit Union Administration proposes to amend part 709 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1757, 1766, 1767, 1786(h), 1787, 1789, 1789a.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(i)
(A) The securitization may not consist of re-securitizations of obligations or collateralized debt obligations unless the documents creating the securitization require that disclosures required in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are made available to investors for the underlying assets supporting the securitization at initiation and while obligations are outstanding; and
(B) The documents creating the securitization must require that payment of principal and interest on the securitization obligation will be primarily based on the performance of
(ii)
(A) The capital structure of the securitization must be limited to no more than six credit tranches and cannot include “sub-tranches,” grantor trusts or other structures. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the most senior credit tranche may include time-based sequential pay or planned amortization and companion sub-tranches; and
(B) The credit quality of the obligations cannot be enhanced at the issuing entity or pool level through external credit support or guarantees. However, the credit quality of the obligations may be enhanced by credit support or guarantees provided by Specified GSEs and the temporary payment of principal and/or interest may be supported by liquidity facilities, including facilities designed to permit the temporary payment of interest following appointment of the NCUA Board as conservator or liquidating agent. Individual financial assets transferred into a securitization may be guaranteed, insured, or otherwise benefit from credit support at the loan level through mortgage and similar insurance or guarantees, including by private companies, agencies or other governmental entities, or government-sponsored enterprises, and/or through co-signers or other guarantees.
(2)
(i)
(A) The documents must require that, on or prior to issuance of obligations and at the time of delivery of any periodic distribution report and, in any event, at least once per calendar quarter, while obligations are outstanding, information about the obligations and the securitized financial assets will be disclosed to all potential investors at the financial asset or pool level and security level, as appropriate for the financial assets, to enable evaluation and analysis of the credit risk and performance of the obligations and financial assets. The documents must require that such information and its disclosure, at a minimum, complies with the requirements of Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation AB, or any successor disclosure requirements for public issuances, even if the obligations are issued in a private placement or are not otherwise required to be registered. Information that is unknown or not available to the sponsor or the issuer after reasonable investigation may be omitted if the issuer includes a statement in the offering documents disclosing that the specific information is otherwise unavailable.
(B) The documents must require that, on or prior to issuance of obligations, the structure of the securitization and the credit and payment performance of the obligations will be disclosed, including the capital or tranche structure, the priority of payments, and specific subordination features; representations and warranties made with respect to the financial assets, the remedies for, and the time permitted for cure of any breach of representations and warranties, including the repurchase of financial assets, if applicable; liquidity facilities and any credit enhancements permitted by this rule, any waterfall triggers, or priority of payment reversal features; and policies governing delinquencies, servicer advances, loss mitigation, and write-offs of financial assets.
(C) The documents must require that while obligations are outstanding, the issuing entity will provide to investors information with respect to the credit performance of the obligations and the financial assets, including periodic and cumulative financial asset performance data, delinquency and modification data for the financial assets, substitutions and removal of financial assets, servicer advances, as well as losses that were allocated to such tranche and remaining balance of financial assets supporting such tranche, if applicable, and the percentage of each tranche in relation to the securitization as a whole.
(D) In connection with the issuance of obligations, the documents must disclose the nature and amount of compensation paid to the originator, sponsor, rating agency or third-party advisor, any mortgage or other broker, and the servicer(s), and the extent to which any risk of loss on the underlying assets is retained by any of them for such securitization be disclosed. The securitization documents must require the issuer to provide to investors while obligations are outstanding any changes to such information and the amount and nature of payments of any deferred compensation or similar arrangements to any of the parties.
(ii)
(A) Prior to issuance of obligations, sponsors must disclose loan level information about the financial assets including, but not limited to, loan type, loan structure (for example, fixed or adjustable, resets, interest rate caps, balloon payments, etc.), maturity, interest rate and/or Annual Percentage Rate, and location of the property.
(B) Prior to issuance of obligations, sponsors must affirm compliance in all material respects with applicable statutory and regulatory standards for the underwriting and origination of residential mortgage loans. Sponsors must disclose a third party due diligence report on compliance with such standards and the representations and warranties made with respect to the financial assets.
(C) The documents must require that prior to issuance of obligations and while obligations are outstanding, servicers will disclose any ownership interest by the servicer or an affiliate of the servicer in other whole loans secured by the same real property that secures a loan included in the financial asset pool. The ownership of an obligation, as defined in this regulation, does not constitute an ownership interest requiring disclosure.
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(A) Servicing and other agreements must provide servicers with authority, subject to contractual oversight by any master servicer or oversight advisor, if any, to mitigate losses on financial assets consistent with maximizing the net present value of the financial asset. Servicers must have the authority to modify assets to address reasonably foreseeable default, and to take other action to maximize the value and minimize losses on the securitized financial assets. The documents must require that the servicers apply industry best practices for asset management and servicing. The documents must require the servicer to act for the benefit of all investors, and not for the benefit of any particular class of investors, that the servicer must commence action to mitigate losses no later than ninety days after an asset first becomes delinquent unless all delinquencies on such asset have been cured, and that the servicer maintains records of its actions to permit full review by the trustee or other representative of the investors.
(B) The servicing agreement may not require a primary servicer to advance delinquent payments of principal and interest for more than three payment periods, unless financing or reimbursement facilities are available, which may include, but are not limited to, the obligations of the master servicer or issuing entity to fund or reimburse the primary servicer, or alternative reimbursement facilities. Such “financing or reimbursement facilities” under this paragraph may not be dependent for repayment on foreclosure proceeds.
(4)
(i) The documents must require that any fees or other compensation for services payable to credit rating agencies or similar third-party evaluation companies are payable, in part, over the five-year period after the first issuance of the obligations based on the performance of surveillance services and the performance of the financial assets, with no more than sixty percent of the total estimated compensation due at closing; and
(ii) The documents must provide that compensation to servicers will include incentives for servicing, including payment for loan restructuring or other loss mitigation activities, which maximizes the net present value of the financial assets. Such incentives may include payments for specific services, and actual expenses, to maximize the net present value or a structure of incentive fees to maximize the net present value, or any combination of the foregoing that provides such incentives.
(5)
(B) Upon the effective date of regulations required under new Section 15G of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78a
(ii)
(A) The documents must require the establishment of a reserve fund equal to at least five (5) percent of the cash proceeds of the securitization payable to the sponsor to cover the repurchase of any financial assets required for breach of representations and warranties. The balance of such fund, if any, must be released to the sponsor one year after the date of issuance.
(B) The documents must include a representation that the assets were originated in all material respects in compliance with statutory, regulatory, and originator underwriting standards in effect at the time of origination. The documents must include a representation that the mortgages included in the securitization were underwritten at the fully indexed rate, based upon the borrowers' ability to repay the mortgage according to its terms, and rely on documented income and comply with all existing all laws, rules, regulations, and guidance governing the underwriting of residential mortgages by federally insured credit unions.
(c)
(2) The securitization agreements are in writing, approved by the board of directors of the credit union or its loan committee (as reflected in the minutes of a meeting of the board of directors or committee), and have been, continuously, from the time of execution in the official record of the credit union;
(3) The securitization was entered into in the ordinary course of business, not in contemplation of insolvency and with no intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the credit union or its creditors;
(4) The transfer was made for adequate consideration;
(5) The transfer and/or security interest was properly perfected under the UCC or applicable state law;
(6) The transfer and duties of the sponsor as transferor must be evidenced in a separate agreement from its duties, if any, as servicer, custodian, paying agent, credit support provider, or in any capacity other than the transferor; and
(7) The documents must require that the sponsor separately identify in its financial asset data bases the financial assets transferred into any securitization and maintain (i) an electronic or paper copy of the closing documents for each securitization in a readily accessible form, (ii) a current list of all of its outstanding securitizations and the respective issuing entities, and (iii) the most recent Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K, if applicable, or other periodic financial report for each securitization and issuing entity. The documents must provide that to the extent serving as servicer, custodian, or paying agent for the securitization, the sponsor may not comingle amounts received with respect to the financial assets with its own assets except for the time, not to exceed two business days,
(d)
(2)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Proposed rule.
The NCUA Board (Board) proposes to amend its regulations to clarify that a natural person federal credit union (FCU) is authorized to securitize loans that it has originated, as an activity incidental to the business for which an FCU is chartered, provided the transaction meets certain requirements. The proposed rule would also apply those requirements to federally insured, state-chartered credit unions (FISCUs) that are permitted by state law to securitize their assets.
Comments must be received on or before August 25, 2014.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• NCUA Web site:
• Email: Address to
• Fax: (703) 518-6319. Use the subject line described above for email.
• Mail: Address to Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail address.
Dale Klein, Senior Capital Markets Specialist, Office of Examination and Insurance, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-6360; Jeremy Taylor, Senior Capital Markets Specialist, Office of National Examinations and Supervision, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-6640; or Lisa Henderson, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-6540.
For purposes of this rule, “securitizing assets” means acting as a sponsor of a securitization,
Under the first prong of the test, an activity must be convenient or useful in
Under the second part of the test, the activity must be the functional equivalent or logical outgrowth of activities that are part of the mission or business of credit unions. FCUs already make loans and either hold them on their books or sell them, or sell a participation interest in them, into the secondary market. Selling loans by repackaging them as securities is a logical outgrowth of an FCU's mission and business.
Finally, the activity must involve risks similar in nature to those already assumed as part of the business of credit unions. Risk is fundamental to the operation of a credit union, and credit unions must balance risk and reward responsibly. Making and selling loans present FCUs with, at a minimum, reputation risk, strategic risk, credit risk, transaction risk, liquidity risk, and compliance risk. While securitizing loans introduces more complex legal and operational risks, these risk types are inherent in other credit union activities and are thus similar in nature to those already assumed as part of the business of credit unions. Accordingly, NCUA has concluded that FCUs have the incidental power to securitize assets.
The Board proposes to amend its regulations to clarify that, under certain circumstances, an FCU has the incidental authority to securitize loans that it has originated. The Board believes that there are a number of potential benefits of securitization. First, securitization provides originators with an additional source of funding or liquidity to meet members' needs. Second, securitization may be used to reduce interest rate risk by converting fixed-rate assets into cash. Finally, the sale of assets may reduce an FCU's regulatory costs by allowing it to optimize its capital management. The details of how an FCU may operate an asset securitization program are discussed in more detail below.
The proposed rule adds a new provision to Part 721 of NCUA's regulations, which addresses the incidental powers of FCUs. Section 721.3 enumerates the categories of activities that are preapproved as incidental powers of an FCU. The proposed rule adds a new paragraph (n) to § 721.3 to establish securitizing loans as a preapproved incidental power.
Paragraph (1) of the proposed rule labels the newly approved category “asset securitization activities” in which an FCU acts as the sponsor of an asset-backed security. Paragraph (2) defines “sponsor,” “asset-backed security,” and other relevant terms.
Paragraph (3) of the proposed rule provides that an FCU may securitize and sell loans it has originated. As discussed above, securitizing loans presents more complex risks than simply making and selling loans. Allowing FCUs to purchase loans for the purpose of issuing asset-backed securities would add an additional layer of risk, in an area that is uncharted for both FCUs and NCUA. Accordingly, for safety and soundness reasons, the proposed rule limits FCUs to securitizing only loans it has originated.
To securitize assets, a sponsor must be able to create an issuing entity, commonly known as a special purpose vehicle or special purpose entity, to hold the assets collateralizing the asset-backed security. The Board considers an FCU's authority to create such entities to be included within the general incidental power to securitize assets, but has made that authority explicit in paragraph (4) of the proposed rule to avoid confusion.
Paragraph (5) of the proposed rule establishes the following seven minimum safety and soundness requirements for an FCU engaging in securitizing assets:
An FCU engaged in securitizing transactions may be subject to numerous registration, disclosure, filing, reporting, and other legal requirements. The complexity of asset securitization transactions requires an FCU that participates in securitization activities to fully investigate all applicable laws and regulations, to establish policies and procedures to assure legal review of all securitization activities, and to take steps to protect itself from liability in the case of problems with particular asset-backed securitization transactions.
An FCU engaged in securitizations must have in place independent risk management controls commensurate with the complexity and volume of its securitizations and its overall risk exposures. The risk management controls must ensure that securitization policies and operating procedures, including clearly articulated risk limits, are in place and appropriate for the FCU.
As an added measure of safety and soundness, the proposed rule requires an FCU engaged in securitization transactions to have an annual audit of its financial statements performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards by an independent licensed auditor. The proposed rule further requires that the financial statements include all aspects of accounting and disclosure for sponsored
The board of directors of an FCU engaged in securitizations must have a general understanding of the risks and benefits of securitization activities and how those activities fit into the credit union's strategic and business plans.
Senior management responsible for an FCU's securitization activities must possess sufficient expertise to oversee those activities. Unlike many other credit union activities, an FCU engaged in securitizing assets is likely to engage outside parties for much of the required procedures. It is not necessary for the FCU to possess all of the required skills in house. However, senior FCU management must have sufficient understanding and familiarity with the process to competently select and oversee parties hired or engaged to support the activities.
An FCU engaged in securitizations must have a credit union board approved asset securitization policy that includes or addresses, at a minimum, the following items:
• A statement of the business purpose for engaging in securitization activities, including the general scope of the activities and the level of acceptable risk.
• The governance of securitization activities;
• A written and consistently applied accounting methodology;
• Regulatory reporting requirements;
• Valuation methods, including those applicable to the FCU's residual interests and retained interests in the securitization transaction, and procedures to formally approve changes to those assumptions;
• The management reporting process; and
• Exposure limits and requirements for both aggregate and individual transaction monitoring.
Effective internal controls are essential to an FCU's management of the risks associated with securitization. When properly designed and consistently enforced, a sound system of internal controls will help management safeguard the FCUs resources, ensure that financial information and reports are reliable, and comply with contractual obligations, including securitization covenants. It will also reduce the possibility of significant errors and irregularities, as well as assist in their timely detection when they do occur. Internal controls typically: (1) Limit authorities, (2) safeguard access to and use of records, (3) separate and rotate duties, and (4) ensure both regular and unscheduled reviews, including testing.
The sponsor of an asset-backed security typically retains an interest in a securitization. Except in certain limited circumstances, NCUA regulations prohibit an FCU from investing in stripped mortgage backed securities and residual interests in collateralized mortgage obligations.
Paragraph (6)(b) of the proposed rule requires an FCU to use reasonable and supportable assumptions and modeling methodologies to assign values to residual interests and retained interests. These assumptions and methodologies must be fully documented. The key assumptions in all valuation analyses include prepayment or payment rates, default rates, loss severity factors, and discount rates. Paragraph 6(b) also requires an FCU to recognize credit impairment for all residual interests and retained interests in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
Residual interests and retained interests concentrate risks to support investor interests. Therefore their value is more susceptible to credit and market risks than the underlying pool of assets. Because of these heightened risks, paragraph (6)(c) of the proposed rule limits the amount of residual interests and retained interests that an FCU may carry to 25% of the FCU's net worth. Residual interests and retained interests in pass-through securities, which generally have the same profile of risk as the underlying assets, are not included in this limitation. The Board specifically requests comment on the appropriateness of this limit, including a detailed rationale for any recommended higher limit.
Sponsors of asset-backed securities may provide contract-based support for a securitization through, among other things, overcollateralization, maintaining a seller's or transferor's interest, and issuing stand-by letters of credit for cash flow purposes. In addition to these legal obligations, in certain circumstances, an originator may wish to provide post-sale credit support to poorly performing asset pools, commonly referred to as “implicit” recourse. To limit risk, however, paragraph (7) of the proposed rule prohibits FCUs from providing implicit recourse to a securitization.
The proposed rule amends Part 741 by adding a new § 741.226 to extend the proposed securitization requirements to FISCUs. The Board believes that there could be a risk to the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund if state law permits a FISCU to sponsor a securitization and the state's associated safety and soundness requirements vary from those applicable to FCUs.
This proposal is related to a companion proposal to amend § 709.10, published elsewhere in today's
In 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board finalized modifications to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) that affected whether an issuing entity must be consolidated for financial reporting purposes, thereby subjecting many issuing entities to GAAP consolidation requirements. As a result of the modifications, legal and accounting treatment of a securitization transaction may no longer be aligned, and the safe harbor provision of current § 709.10 may not apply to a transfer in connection with a securitization that does not qualify for off balance sheet
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis of any significant economic impact any proposed regulation may have on a substantial number of small entities (primarily those under $50 million in assets).
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or increases an existing burden.
The information collection requirement is found in section 721.3(n)(5)(iii) of the proposed rule. That provision requires an FCU that undertakes securitization activities to have a credit union board approved policy stating the purpose and governance of securitization activities. NCUA estimates that it will take 50 hours to develop a securitization policy initially and 10 hours to maintain the policy annually. As NCUA further estimates that only one FCU will undertake asset securitization activities, the initial paperwork burden is 50 hours and ongoing burden is 10 hours.
NCUA considers comments by the public on this proposed collection of information in:
• Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NCUA, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• Evaluating the accuracy of NCUA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimizing the burden of 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;
OMB will make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in the proposed regulation between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Comments on the proposed information collection requirements should be sent to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: NCUA Desk Officer, with a copy to Tracy Crews at the National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. The proposed rule does 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. NCUA has, therefore, determined that this proposal does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
NCUA has determined that this proposed rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of § 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
Credit unions, Functions, Implied powers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Credit, Credit unions, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements, Share insurance.
For the reasons discussed above, the National Credit Union Administration proposes to amend parts 721 and 741 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1757(17), 1766, 1789.
(n)(1)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
As used in this paragraph (n):
(3)
(4)
(5)
(i) The federal credit union must with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations.
(ii) The federal credit union must put in place a risk management process that is independent of the securitization process to monitor securitization pool performance on an aggregate and individual transaction level.
(iii) The federal credit union's supervisory committee must obtain an annual audit of the credit union's financial statements performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards by an independent licensed auditor. The financial statements subject to audit must include all aspects of accounting and disclosure for sponsored securitizations in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
(iv) The federal credit union's board of directors must possess a general understanding of asset securitization.
(v) The federal credit union's senior executive officers responsible for securitization activities must possess sufficient expertise to oversee those activities.
(vi) The federal credit union must have a credit union board approved policy, stating the purpose of securitization activities and establishing principles for their governance.
(vii) The federal credit union's internal audit or internal risk review function must periodically review data integrity, model algorithms, key underlying assumptions, and the appropriateness of the valuation and modeling process for the securitized assets retained by the federal credit union, and report the findings of such reviews directly to the federal credit union's board or an appropriate board member.
(6)
(i) Any provision in part 703 of this chapter that limits a federal credit union's ability to hold a stripped mortgage backed security or residual interest in a collateralized mortgage obligation does not apply to such an instrument retained in the course of sponsoring a securitization transaction.
(ii) A federal credit union must employ reasonable and supportable valuation assumptions and modeling methodologies to establish, evaluate, and adjust the carrying value of residual interests and retained interests on a regular and timely basis and must recognize credit impairment for all residual interests and retained interests in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
(iii) A federal credit union must limit the maximum amount of all residual interests and retained interests to 25 percent of net worth. Residual interests and retained interests in pass-through securities, which assume a pro-rata share of risk, are not included in this limitation.
(7)
Any credit union that is insured pursuant to Title II of the Act must adhere to the requirements stated in § 721.3(n) of this chapter.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Pursuant to the Federal Power Act, the Commission proposes to approve Modeling, Data, and Analysis Reliability Standard MOD-001-2 developed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, which the Commission has certified as the Electric Reliability Organization responsible for developing and enforcing mandatory Reliability Standards.
Comments are due August 25, 2014.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:
• Electronic Filing through
• Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
1. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards are enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently.
3. NERC developed the currently-effective Reliability Standards MOD-001-1a, MOD-004-1, MOD-008-1, MOD-028-2, MOD-029-1a, and MOD-030-2 (Existing MOD A Standards) based on the obligation for transmission service providers to determine ATC and AFC, as those terms were introduced in Order Nos. 888 and 889.
4. In February 2007 the Commission issued Order No. 890 and, among other things, sought to standardize the manner in which ATC/AFC was calculated.
5. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693, approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC in April 2006.
6. In response to the requirements of Order No. 890 and related directives of Order No. 693, NERC developed the Existing MOD A Standards, which the Commission approved in Order No. 729.
7. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard MOD-001-2 replaces, consolidates and improves upon the Existing MOD A Standards by establishing a framework that comprehensively addresses the reliability concerns raised in Order Nos. 693, 890 and 729. According to NERC, ATC and AFC values “are commercial in nature, representing the amount of unused transmission capacity that a Transmission Service Provider is willing to make available for sale to third parties. The purpose of proposed MOD-001-2 is to help ensure that determinations of ATC and AFC are accomplished in a manner that supports the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System.”
Certain of the requirements from the Existing MOD A Standards that are not included in the proposed Reliability Standard may be necessary for market or commercial purposes. Accordingly, NERC formally requested that NAESB, which administers business practice standards for the electric industry, consider whether any of the “retired” requirements are appropriate for incorporation into NAESB's WEQ Standards to help maintain a non-discriminatory market for transmission service. NERC understands that NAESB, working through its business practice development process, is considering whether to incorporate into its WEQ Standards those elements from the Existing MOD A Standards, if any, that relate to commercial or business practices.
8. NERC explains that proposed Reliability Standard MOD-001-2 helps ensure that: (1) ATC/AFC and total transfer capability and total flowgate capacity determinations account for system limits and relevant system conditions; (2) ATC/AFC, total transfer capability, total flowgate capacity, capacity benefit margin
9. Further, NERC states that the proposed Reliability Standard addresses the Commission directives in Order No. 729, to the extent that the directives relate to the reliability requirements retained in proposed MOD-002-1.
10. NERC proposes six requirements in proposed Reliability Standard MOD-001-2.
11. NERC requests that the Commission approve proposed Reliability Standard MOD-001-2 and the retirement of the Existing MOD A Standards effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 months after the date that the proposed standard is approved by the Commission.
12. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, the Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standard MOD-001-2 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. We also propose to approve the associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels as well as the retirement of the currently-effective MOD A Standards as requested by NERC.
13. Proposed Reliability Standard MOD-001-2 appears to adequately address the Commission concerns and directives in Order Nos. 890, 693 and 729. In addition, it appears that proposed Reliability MOD-001-2 will enhance reliability by imposing mandatory requirements governing ATC calculations, thereby providing greater transparency to the methodologies used for the reliability components of the ATC equation.
14. With regard to the implementation plan, NERC explains that the proposed effective date—the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 18 months after Commission approval—is designed to allow NAESB to develop related commercial standards that would take effect concurrently with MOD-001-2. While NERC's implementation schedule appears reasonable, we are concerned about a potential “gap” should the retirement of the currently-effective MOD A Standards occur prior to effective date of corresponding NAESB WEQ business practices. Accordingly, we seek comment from NAESB and others whether 18 months from the date of Commission approval provides adequate time for NAESB to develop related business practices associated with ATC calculations or whether additional time may be appropriate to better assure synchronization of the effective dates for the proposed Reliability Standard and related NAESB practices. Further, while NERC states that it is “committed to working with NAESB and Commission staff to address any timing issues,”
15. The collection of information contained in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
16. We solicit comments on the need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques. Specifically, the Commission asks that any revised burden or cost estimates submitted by commenters be supported by sufficient detail to understand how the estimates are generated.
17. This notice proposes to approve Reliability Standard MOD-001-2 and to retire Reliability Standards MOD-001-1a, MOD-004-1, MOD-008-1, MOD-028-2, MOD-029-1a, and MOD-030-2. Proposed Reliability Standard MOD-001-2 will ensure that ATC calculations are determined in a manner that supports the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System and that the methodology and data underlying those determinations are disclosed to those registered entities that need such information for reliability purposes.
18. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email:
19. Comments concerning the information collections proposed in this NOPR and the associated burden estimates should be sent to the Commission in these dockets and may also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the following email address:
20. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
21. Based on U.S. economic census data,
22. Proposed Reliability Standard MOD-001-2 will serve to enhance reliability by imposing mandatory requirements governing total flowgate capability or total transfer capability and AFC or ATC methodologies, as well as capacity benefit margin and transmission reliability margin methodologies, to be used in modeling. The Commission estimates that each of the small entities to whom proposed Reliability Standard MOD-001-2 applies will incur one-time compliance costs of $1,192 (i.e. the cost of drafting methodologies), plus paperwork and record retention costs of $57.90 (annual ongoing).
23. Furthermore, the removal of applicable entities from the proposed retirement of Reliability Standards reduces the total burden on transmission providers, load-serving entities, and balancing authorities for an annual savings of $238.48 per entity.
24. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
25. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due August 25, 2014. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM14-7-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.
26. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at
27. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
28. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
29. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
30. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
31. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
By direction of the Commission.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration (NCA) proposes to
Comments must be received on or before July 28, 2014.
Written comments may be submitted through
Cynthia Riddle, Office of Field Programs (41A), National Cemetery Administration (NCA), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420. Telephone: (202) 461-6306 (this is not a toll-free number).
On January 10, 2013, Congress enacted the “Dignified Burial and Other Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2012” (the Act), Public Law 112-260, 126 Stat. 2417 (2013), section 101 of which amended 38 U.S.C. 2306 to authorize the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Cemetery Administration (NCA) to furnish a casket or urn for interment in a VA national cemetery of the unclaimed remains of veterans for whom VA cannot identify a next of kin (NOK) and determines that sufficient financial resources for the furnishing of a casket or urn for burial are not available. VA proposes to add a new § 38.637 to part 38 of title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to implement this new statutory authority by providing a monetary reimbursement for privately purchased caskets or urns that meet NCA standards and are used to inter the remains of such veterans in VA national cemeteries.
NCA is responsible for administering cemetery programs and memorial benefits, which include the provision of medallions, headstones, and markers, as well as burial in a VA national cemetery for eligible veterans and their family members. Section 2402 of title 38, United States Code, establishes eligibility requirements for burial in a VA national cemetery. For eligible veterans and certain family members, VA covers the cost of interment in a VA national cemetery and provides a headstone or marker (including inscription), as well as a gravesite or cremation niche and perpetual care of the gravesite or cremation niche. The Act authorizes VA to furnish a casket or urn for the burial in a national cemetery of the remains of a veteran with no known NOK and where sufficient financial resources are not otherwise available. Because VA's burial operations do not normally include the acquisition or provision of a casket or an urn, VA is proposing to provide monetary reimbursement for a privately purchased casket or urn for the burial of any veterans whose remains are unclaimed when no NOK can be identified and it is determined that insufficient financial resources are available to pay for cost of the casket or urn. VA believes that monetary reimbursement is a more efficient means to administer this authority because direct provision of caskets and urns would create additional administrative duties and expenses, outside the scope of normal operations, which may impact the timely provision of burial services.
When veterans and other individuals die without sufficient funds for burial and no known NOK, third parties, such as public administrators, local coroners, funeral directors or volunteer organizations, often assume responsibility for the burial of unclaimed remains, to include the provision of a casket or urn for burial at private or public expense. By establishing a means to reimburse these third parties for the expense of a burial receptacle, VA would ensure that these veterans receive an appropriate burial in a national cemetery consistent with Congress' stated objective in enacting the amendment to 38 U.S.C. 2306. Requests for reimbursement would require presentation of an invoice to ensure accountability and quality of the purchased casket or urn, but would be limited to an average cost to ensure appropriate fiscal control.
In paragraph (a) of proposed 38 CFR 38.637, we would state the general applicability of the reimbursement program, which is based on the authority set forth in the Act. Because the Act directs that burial will be in a national cemetery, VA would determine whether the deceased veteran is eligible for burial in one of the VA national cemeteries. Generally, eligibility requirements are set forth in § 38.620. Sections 38.617 and 38.618 contain prohibitions for burial in certain circumstances, and the Act contained new restrictions, based on a deceased veteran's conviction of certain sex offenses, for which VA has not yet published regulations. These legal requirements would also be considered in determining whether a deceased veteran is eligible for burial in a national cemetery.
Paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of § 38.637 state the additional requirements that were set forth in the Act which define when VA may furnish a burial receptacle. As stated previously, the Act provided authority for VA to furnish a casket or an urn when VA is unable to identify the veteran's next-of-kin and determines that sufficient resources to purchase the burial receptacle are not otherwise available. These requirements are discussed below.
In paragraph (b) of § 38.637, we propose the requirements necessary for an individual or entity to request reimbursement. To ensure consistent process and submission of information, VA has developed a form to be used for requesting reimbursement. VA has separately requested the Office of Management and Budget approval of the form and published a notice requesting comment on the information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. See Paperwork Reduction Act section below.
As proposed, the form and any supporting documentation would provide information sufficient for VA to make determinations regarding the veteran's eligibility for burial in a national cemetery, and the availability of the veteran's next-of-kin and resources for purchasing a burial receptacle. The individual or entity that seeks reimbursement must have attempted to identify both the next-of-kin and available resources. In some cases, an applicant may explain that a veteran's remains have been deemed abandoned based on State law, or describe circumstances that would reasonably lead the applicant to
In paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) of § 38.637, we propose to require the individual or entity to submit an invoice showing the purchase price of the burial receptacle and information sufficient for VA to determine that the burial receptacle is compliant with certain minimum standards. We are aware that burial receptacles available for purchase, particularly caskets, are available in a wide array of materials and in a range of prices. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which has authority to regulate funeral industry practices, defines a “casket” in part 453 of title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as “a rigid container which is designed for the encasement of human remains and which is usually constructed of wood, metal, fiberglass, plastic, or like material, and ornamented and lined with fabric.” In addition, the FTC regulation provides a definition of an “alternative container,” which we construe as applicable to cremation urns. An “alternative container” is defined as “an unfinished wood box or other non-metal receptacle or enclosure, without ornamentation or a fixed interior lining, which is designed for the encasement of human remains and which is made of fiberboard, pressed-wood, composition materials (with or without an outside covering), or like materials.” VA proposes to establish minimum specifications for a casket or urn eligible for reimbursement based on these definitions, but refined to ensure a “dignified burial.”
In paragraph (b)(5)(i) of § 38.637, we propose to require that purchased caskets be at least of 20-gauge metal construction. Although both VA and the individual or entity would have attempted to locate a NOK, there is the possibility that, in the future, someone may come forward to claim a veteran's remains and seek to reinter them somewhere other than a national cemetery. VA believes, based on our experience, that a casket crafted of 20-gauge metal would ensure the integrity of the remains should disinterment and reinterment be required. While other heavier weights of metal caskets are available, we propose that 20-gauge would be a minimum required for reimbursement. This is a standard economical option that is generally available from major vendors of caskets and is in keeping with our intent to provide a durable yet affordable casket.
We would also require that the casket be designed to contain human remains. Not all metal containers are appropriate for burial, nor would any metal container ensure the dignity we expect when burying our nation's veterans. Generally, caskets are of a consistent size, but we do not propose to regulate this element, other than to require that the casket be of sufficient size to contain the remains of the deceased. We note, for information, that the normal plot size in a national cemetery will accommodate caskets up to 82 inches long by 28 inches wide. Larger caskets, however, may be accommodated when necessary. We further propose design elements—that the casket have a gasketed seal and external rails or handles—to ensure integrity of the remains and to allow the casket to be raised and lowered as needed.
We propose to require that urns be constructed of durable plastic, with a secure closure to contain the cremated remains. As with caskets, our proposal for the material is based on our concern that we may need to disinter and reinter these remains. VA national cemeteries provide direct in-ground burial for cremated remains, as well as niches in columbaria. We propose to require durable plastic construction to ensure the integrity of the remains in either case. Similar to our requirement for caskets, we require that the urn be designed for containing cremated human remains, because not all plastic containers are suitable for this purpose.
We note that while these specifications are required for reimbursement under this regulation, they do not reflect a requirement that all caskets or urns used in burials in national cemeteries must meet. VA is committed to ensuring that the wishes of a veteran's family are paramount in burying their loved one. Some families may choose to provide a casket or urn for their veteran that does not meet the standards discussed above. They may even choose, for religious or cultural reasons, to not have a burial container at all. VA endeavors at all times to adhere closely to the wishes of a deceased veteran's family, so we would honor these wishes, providing we can do so while ensuring not only public health and safety but the health and safety of VA employees. In the case of unclaimed remains for which we are furnishing (through reimbursement) a casket or urn, we propose the standards defined above to ensure that each veteran, in the absence of a family member to make such determinations, is laid to rest in a consistently dignified manner.
VA would visually inspect the casket or urn when it arrives at the national cemetery to ensure that it corresponds to the description on the invoice. Provided that visual inspection and the documentation confirm that the burial receptacle meets the specifications defined above, VA proposes to reimburse the individual or entity for the purchase price shown on the invoice, up to a maximum amount to protect the program from abuse. The Act requires VA to ensure the burial receptacle is “appropriate for a dignified burial.” As discussed above, we believe the standards we have provided would ensure a dignified burial. We do not prohibit an individual or entity from purchasing a burial receptacle that exceeds these standards. However, if VA were to reimburse for any purchase, without limit, we would jeopardize our ability to provide even the most reasonable burial for other deserving veterans. We propose, therefore, in paragraph (c) of § 38.637, to determine the average cost of caskets and urns for the fiscal year preceding calendar year of the purchase and burial, and use that average as a maximum reimbursement limit. Our authority under the Act began on January 10, 2014, therefore all reimbursements for purchases of burial receptacles for individuals who die between January 10, 2014 and December 31, 2014, would be subject to a maximum reimbursement limit based on the average cost of a casket or urn meeting the proposed specification available for purchase during the fiscal year from October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013. By using the calendar year for the reimbursement, and the fiscal year for the average cost
This proposed rulemaking is being published after the effective date of the Act (January 10, 2014). Because individuals and entities who were responsible for the unclaimed remains of veterans may have purchased burial receptacles for those remains before the publication of this proposed rule without knowing VA's intended standards for at least 20-gauge metal construction of caskets or durable plastic construction of urns, VA would consider a limited deviation from those standards to allow reimbursement for purchases that do not meet those standards. This deviation is only for the standard that requires a casket to be of at least 20-gauge metal construction or an urn to be of durable plastic construction. All other requirements contained in the proposed regulation would apply, including required gasketed seals and handles or rails, as well as requirements regarding the eligibility of the veteran for burial, lack of a NOK, and insufficient resources to purchase a burial receptacle. If, before the publication date of the proposed rulemaking, an individual or entity purchased a casket or urn for burial in a VA national cemetery of the remains of a veteran who died after January 10, 2014, and the burial receptacle is not at least a 20-gauge metal casket or a durable plastic urn, VA would reimburse the purchase price of the burial receptacle, providing all other criteria in the proposed regulation are met. The reimbursement amount would be subject to the maximum reimbursement amount calculated for 2014.
Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this final rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority on this subject. Other than future amendments to this regulation or governing statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking.
The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, because the number of claims and the amounts involved are expected to be small. This rule would only impact those third parties and entities that choose to participate in this program. Payments made under this program are not intended as benefits but to provide reimbursement for privately purchased caskets and urns. We estimate the average price of a burial receptacle (and therefore the average reimbursement) would be less than $2,000 for caskets and less than $200 for urns. We also estimate that the total number of reimbursements for 2014 would be 338 caskets and 332 urns. Because the proposed rulemaking provides for a reimbursement, the individual or entity purchasing the burial receptacle would recoup the purchase price, up to the maximum rate established annually. Generally this would result in the individual or entity avoiding a financial loss for having made the purchase. But, because the reimbursement would be equal to the purchase price of the burial receptacle, the individual or entity would not experience any gain. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
VA has developed an application, VA Form 40-10088, which constitutes a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) that requires approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
In accordance with the PRA, VA will solicit public comment and obtain OMB approval for any information collection included in this proposed rule. Prior to publication of any final rule, VA will analyze public comments received for this collection requirement.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this proposed rule have been examined and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
Although Executive Order 12866 generally requires that agencies afford the public a 60-day comment period, VA has determined that good cause exists to limit the public comment period for this proposed rule to 30 days. This rulemaking is necessary to implement the statutory changes enacted in Public Law 112-260 to increase the availability of benefits for veterans whose remains are unclaimed where sufficient resources are not available for burial expenses. VA must implement the new casket and urn authority in regulation to inform the public of reimbursement amounts, application procedures, and standards for the caskets or urns. These statutory provisions became effective on January 10, 2014, one year after the enactment date of the law. Accordingly, we are providing a 30-day comment period for the public to comment on the proposed rule.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program number and title for this proposed rule are 64.201, National Cemeteries.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of Veteran Affairs, approved this document on June 13, 2014, for publication.
Administrative practice and procedure, Cemeteries, Veterans.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 38 as set forth below:
38 U.S.C. 107, 501, 512, 2306, 2402, 2403, 2404, 2408, 2411, 7105.
(a) VA will reimburse any individual or entity for the actual cost of a casket or an urn, purchased by the individual or entity for the burial in a national cemetery of an eligible veteran who died on or after January 10, 2014, for whom VA:
(1) Is unable to identify the veteran's next-of-kin; and
(2) Determines that sufficient resources are otherwise unavailable to furnish the casket or urn.
(b) An individual or entity may request reimbursement from VA under paragraph (a) of this section by completing and submitting VA Form 40-10088, and supporting documentation, in accordance with the instructions on the form. Prior to approving reimbursement VA must find all of the following:
(1) The veteran is eligible for burial in a VA national cemetery;
(2) The individual or entity has certified that they cannot identify the veteran's next-of-kin, and VA's records do not identify a next-of-kin;
(3) The individual or entity has certified that, to the best of their knowledge, sufficient resources are otherwise unavailable to furnish the casket or urn, and VA's records do not indicate such resources;
(4) The invoice presented by the individual or entity clearly indicates the purchase price of the casket or urn purchased by the individual or entity; and
(5) The invoice presented by the individual or entity contains information sufficient for VA to determine, in conjunction with a visual inspection, that the casket or urn meets the following minimum standards:
(i) Caskets must be of 20-gauge metal construction, designed for containing human remains, sufficient to contain the remains of the deceased veteran, include a gasketed seal, and include external fixed rails or swing arm handles.
(ii) Urns must be of durable plastic construction, with a secure closure to contain the cremated remains, and must be designed for containing cremated human remains.
(c) Reimbursement under paragraph (a) of this section will not exceed the average cost of the casket or urn, as determined by VA and published annually in the
(d) If, before June 26, 2014, an individual or entity purchased a casket or urn for burial in a VA national cemetery of the remains of a veteran who died after January 10, 2014, and the burial receptacle is not at least a 20-gauge metal casket or a durable plastic urn, VA will reimburse the purchase price of the burial receptacle, providing all other criteria in this regulation are met. The reimbursement amount will be subject to the maximum reimbursement amount calculated for 2014.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; supplemental.
On June 27, 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed action on particulate matter rule revisions that Ohio submitted on June 4, 2003. While EPA subsequently took final action with respect to provisions that it proposed to approve, EPA has not taken final action with respect to provisions relating to opacity limitations that EPA proposed to disapprove on June 27, 2005. EPA is evaluating the public comments received in response to the proposed disapproval published on June 27, 2005.
EPA believes that events subsequent to the publication of the proposed disapproval and the associated comment period have not altered the criteria for evaluating Ohio's rule revisions relating to opacity and have not otherwise influenced whether the rule revisions should be disapproved, as proposed. Nevertheless, given the passage of time, EPA is soliciting supplemental comment specifically with respect to whether events
Comments must be received on or before July 28, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2005-OH-0002, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
John Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6067,
On June 4, 2003, Ohio submitted revisions to particulate matter rules in the EPA approved SIP for the state, in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-17. These revisions included significant revisions to Ohio's requirements regarding opacity limits applicable to various sources, reflected in revisions to OAC 3745-17-03. Among other changes, these revisions provided that sources meeting certain criteria, including operating a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) in compliance with pertinent data quality requirements, could opt to demonstrate compliance by showing that the COMS data meet modified opacity limits. The revisions also include various less substantive updates, simplifications, and clarifications in other parts of OAC 3745-17 that are unrelated to the applicable opacity standards.
EPA proposed action on these revisions to OAC 3745-17 on June 27, 2005, published at 70 FR 36901. EPA proposed to disapprove the revisions in OAC 3745-17-03, finding that the revisions relaxed applicable opacity requirements without any demonstration pursuant to Clean Air Act section 110(l) that the relaxation does not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or satisfaction of other requirements. EPA proposed to approve most of the remaining revisions that Ohio submitted. These remaining revisions were part of a subsequently submitted and subsequently approved set of revisions, and so these remaining revisions are not at issue here. EPA received comments on the June 25, 2007, proposal from several commenters.
On September 10, 2009, Ohio submitted additional rule revisions expressly intended to consolidate its air quality standards. These rule revisions included an update to the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A), intended to clarify that the ambient monitoring methods given in OAC 3745-17-01 were to be used to assess attainment with air quality standards in a rule relocated from OAC 3745-17-02 to OAC 3745-25-02. EPA published direct final action approving the air quality standards-related revisions on October 26, 2010, at 75 FR 65572.
Unfortunately, EPA's October 2010 action on Ohio's September 2009 submission (addressing the state's air quality standards rules) erroneously appeared to suggest that EPA was approving the entirety of the substantive revisions to OAC 3745-17-03, even though the action only addressed the revision to the cross reference in paragraph A and not the other substantive provisions in OAC 3745-17-03 such as the opacity-related provisions in OAC 3745-17-03(B). Upon finding this error, EPA published action on April 3, 2013, at 78 FR 19990, to correct this error pursuant to its authority under the Administrative Procedures Act. Two parties then objected to this method of correcting the typographical error and requested that EPA address this error pursuant to EPA's authority under Clean Air Act section 110(k)(6). EPA agreed to these requests and published proposed action pursuant to Clean Air Act section 110(k)(6) on February 7, 2014, at 79 FR 7412. EPA is currently evaluating comments on the February 2014
EPA believes that neither these events nor any other events warrant any alterations in the criteria for evaluation of Ohio's opacity rules or in the analysis of Ohio's June 4, 2003, submission. Actions on other parts of OAC Chapter 3745-17 rules and actions pertinent to revision of the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A) and other provisions related to air quality standards are not pertinent to EPA's proposed disapproval of the revisions to the substantive opacity provisions of OAC 3745-17-03. EPA has not issued any revised guidance or taken other action on issues pertinent to its review of Ohio's opacity rule revisions. Therefore, EPA believes that no new issues have arisen since its June 27, 2005, proposed disapproval and the associated comment period that warrant consideration before EPA takes final action on these rule revisions. However, EPA is specifically soliciting comment on whether any events subsequent to the comment period on the June 27, 2005, action should have any impact on that proposed disapproval, and if so how those events should influence the appropriate criteria.
EPA is soliciting comments on whether any events which have occurred, or any policy considerations which have arisen, after the comment period on EPA's June 27, 2005, proposed disapproval of revisions to Ohio's opacity rules in OAC 3745-17-03 should be considered by EPA in evaluating these rule revisions. EPA's proposed rulemaking of June 27, 2005, solicited comments that could be made at that time and EPA is not soliciting resubmission of prior comments or submission of additional comments that could have been made at that time. EPA is specifically soliciting only comments that could not have been made at the time of its prior proposed rulemaking because they are based upon events or policy considerations that arose subsequent to that comment period.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and, therefore, is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This action merely proposes to disapprove state law as not meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Because this rule proposes to disapprove pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to disapprove a state rule, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000).
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it proposes to disapprove a state rule.
Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant energy action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Proposed rule.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is proposing to amend the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) by adding terms and definitions for “Marriage” and “Spouse,” and by proposing to revise the definition of “Domestic Partnership”.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat at one of the address shown below on or before August 25, 2014 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Submit comments identified by FTR Case 2014-301 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For clarification of content, contact Rick Miller, Office of Government-wide Policy, Travel and Relocation Policy Division at (202) 501-3822 or email at
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provided that, when used in a Federal law, the term “marriage” would mean only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and that the term “spouse” referred only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Because of DOMA, the Federal Government has been heretofore prohibited from recognizing marriages of same-sex couples for the purposes of travel and relocation entitlements.
On June 17, 2009, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination stating that “[t]he heads of all other executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management, shall conduct a review of the benefits provided by their respective departments and agencies to determine what authority they have to extend such benefits to same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees.” As part of its review, GSA identified a number of changes to the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) that could be made. Subsequently, on June 2, 2010, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum directing agencies to immediately take actions, consistent with existing law, to extend certain benefits, including travel and relocation benefits, to same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees, and, where applicable, to the children of same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees.
GSA published an interim rule and a final rule, respectively in the
On June 26, 2013, in
Pursuant to this authority, this proposed rule adds a definition for the terms “Marriage” and “Spouse,” and proposes to revise the definition of the term “Domestic Partnership.” Due to current statutory restrictions, however, this proposed final rule does not apply to the relocation income tax allowance or the income tax reimbursement allowance for state tax laws when the applicable state does not recognize same-sex marriage.
The term “marriage” is proposed to include any marriage, including a marriage between individuals of the same sex, that was entered into in a state (or foreign country) whose laws authorize the marriage, even if the married couple is domiciled in a state (or foreign country) that does not recognize the validity of the marriage. The term also includes common law marriage in states where such marriages are recognized, so long as they are proven according to the applicable state laws. The term “spouse” is proposed to include any individual who has entered into such a marriage.
The term “marriage” will not include registered domestic partnerships, civil unions, or other similar formal relationships recognized under state (or foreign country) law that are not denominated as a marriage under that state's (or foreign country's) law, and the terms “spouse,” “husband and wife,” “husband,” and “wife” do not include individuals who have entered into such a relationship. This conclusion will apply regardless of whether individuals who have entered into such relationships are of the opposite sex or the same sex.
At the time the definition of “immediate family” in the FTR was amended to include same-sex domestic partners and their dependents, Section 3 of DOMA prohibited GSA from recognizing same-sex marriages. Thus, the availability of same-sex marriage in a particular state was not relevant to the determination of coverage eligibility for travel and relocation benefits. Now that, pursuant to
Same-sex couples living in states that allow them to marry have access to many, if not all, of the protections that
Therefore, the term “domestic partnership” is proposed to be updated to read that same-sex domestic partners that have a documented domestic partnership, and reside in a state (or foreign country) whose laws do not recognize the validity of same-sex marriage will still be considered an immediate family member under the FTR, only if they certify that they would marry but for the failure of their state of residence to permit same-sex marriage. For those individuals who reside in states (or foreign countries) that authorize the marriage of two individuals of the same sex, the individuals will no longer be considered domestic partners or immediate family members due to the certification requirement.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a “significant regulatory action,” and therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. Accordingly, the proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the Federal Travel Regulation do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
This proposed rule is also exempt from Congressional review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to agency management and personnel.
Government employees, Relocation, Travel, and Transportation expenses.
For the reasons set forth in the Preamble, under 5 U.S.C. 5701-5709, 5721-5738, and 5741-5742, GSA proposes to amend 41 CFR part 300-3, as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 49 U.S.C. 40118; 5 U.S.C. 5738; 5 U.S.C. 5741-5742; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); 31 U.S.C. 1353; E.O. 11609, as amended; 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 586, OMB Circular No. A-126, revised May 22, 1992.
The additions read as follows:
(10) Certify that they would marry but for the failure of their state of residence to permit same-sex marriage.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
90-day petition finding; request for information.
We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to identify the Central North Pacific population of humpback whale (
Information and comments must be received by July 28, 2014.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2014-0051, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Interested persons may obtain a copy of the petition online at the NMFS Alaska Region Web site:
Aleria Jensen, NMFS Alaska Region, (907) 586-7248 or Jon Kurland, NMFS Alaska Region, (907) 586-7638.
On August 12, 2009, we announced the initiation of a status review of the humpback whale globally to determine whether an endangered listing for the entire species was still appropriate (74 FR 40568). The agency formed a Biological Review Team to evaluate the status of the species and produce a final report, which has not yet been released.
On April 17, 2013, we received a petition from the Hawaii Fishermen's Alliance for Conservation and Tradition, Inc., to classify the North Pacific humpback whale population as a DPS and delist the DPS under the ESA. We found that the petitioned action may be warranted (78 FR 53391; August 29, 2013) and incorporated the consideration of the petitioned action into the ongoing status review commenced in 2009.
On February 26, 2014, we received a petition from the State of Alaska to identify The Central North Pacific population of humpback whale as a DPS and delist the DPS under the ESA. Humpback whales in the North Pacific are divided into three separate stocks under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA): The Central North Pacific (or Hawaii) stock, the western North Pacific (or Asia) stock, and the California/Oregon/Washington and Mexico (or Mexico/Central America) stock. These stocks have formed the basis for monitoring population trends pursuant to the MMPA since the mid-1990s.
For information on the distribution and life history of the Central North Pacific (or Hawaii) population of the humpback whale, see Fleming and Jackson (2011), Global Summary of the Humpback Whale, information that was recently compiled for NMFS's 5-year review of the humpback whale and published as a NOAA Technical Memorandum, and our 90-day finding on the petition to delist the North Pacific population of the humpback whale (78 FR 53391; August 29, 2013).
In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, to the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered, the Secretary of Commerce is required to make a finding on whether that petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish such finding in the
Under the ESA, the term “species” means a species, a subspecies, or a DPS of a vertebrate species (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint policy issued by NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Services) clarifies the Services' interpretation of the phrase “Distinct Population Segment,” or DPS (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). The DPS Policy requires the consideration of two elements when evaluating whether a vertebrate population segment qualifies as a DPS under the ESA: Discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species; and, if discrete, the significance of the population segment to the species.
A species is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether a species is threatened or endangered based on any one or a combination of the following section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d), a species shall be removed from the list if the Secretary of Commerce determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the species' status, that the species is no longer threatened or endangered because of one or a combination of the section 4(a)(1) factors. A species may be delisted only if such data substantiate that it is neither endangered nor
(1)
(2)
(3)
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by the Services (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define “substantial information,” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species, as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, the Secretary must consider whether the petition (1) clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
Judicial decisions have clarified the appropriate scope and limitations of the Services' review of petitions at the 90-day finding stage, in making a determination that a petitioned action may be warranted. As a general matter, these decisions hold that a petition need not establish a strong likelihood or a high probability that the petitioned action is warranted to support a positive 90-day finding.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted, including its references and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioners' sources and characterizations of the information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates that the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be disregarded at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports the petitioners' assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating that the species may meet the ESA's requirements for delisting is not required to make a positive 90-day finding.
In evaluating whether a petition to delist a population is warranted, first we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for delisting under the ESA. If so, we then evaluate whether the information indicates that the species no longer faces an extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1).
The State of Alaska maintains that the Central North Pacific, or Hawaii, stock, constitutes a DPS under the ESA. Based on photo-identification and genetic data, we currently recognize the Central North Pacific humpback whale population as one of three discrete stocks in the North Pacific under the MMPA. The petition notes this demographic distinctness, and asserts that the Central North Pacific humpback whale population qualifies as a DPS due to its strong behavioral and genetic fidelity to specific breeding and feeding areas over generations. The State of Alaska argues that the population is markedly separated from other North Pacific populations based on physical, behavioral, and management factors, and qualifies as a significant and discrete population because of these factors.
Further, the State asserts that this population has recovered to the point that it is no longer threatened with extinction, based on an analysis of available scientific and commercial information. The petition asserts that the Central North Pacific humpback whale is now found throughout its historical range, having rebounded following the end of commercial whaling. The petition points to recent population estimates which place the current Central North Pacific humpback whales at a higher population level than that which existed at the onset of modern whaling (pre-1905). The State of Alaska also refers to the 1991 Humpback Whale Recovery Plan and claims that sufficient information exists to demonstrate that the Central North Pacific population has met the recovery goals contained within the plan.
Finally, the State analyzes the five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors and concludes that the threats leading to the population's endangered status have been either completely eliminated or sufficiently reduced or controlled so that the long-term survival of the species is ensured and the protections provided by the ESA are no longer necessary. They assert that threats from destruction, modification, or curtailment of the population's habitat or range have been sufficiently controlled (e.g., oil and gas development, water quality, coastal development, contaminants, impacts to prey base); that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is no longer a threat (e.g., whaling); that disease and predation are not a threat (e.g., from killer whales or sharks); that existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate to protect the population (e.g., MMPA, ESA, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Fisheries Act of Canada, Canadian Species at Risk Act); and that other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence have been sufficiently reduced or do not pose a
We have reviewed the petition, the literature cited in the petition, and other literature and information available in our files. Although we identified some incomplete information and unsupported conclusions within the petition, we find that the information presented in the petition would lead a reasonable person to believe that the petitioned action may be warranted. Considering the requirements of 50 CFR 424.14(b) for addressing petitions at the 90-day finding stage, we have therefore determined that the petition, the literature cited in the petition, and other literature and information readily available in our files constitute substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.
As a result of this finding, we will continue our status review of the humpback whale to determine whether the Central North Pacific humpback whale population constitutes a DPS under the ESA, and if so, the risk of extinction to this DPS. Based on the results of the status review, we will then determine whether delisting or downlisting (from endangered to threatened) the Central North Pacific population of the humpback whale is warranted.
To ensure that the status review is based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information on the humpback whale, with a focus on the Central North Pacific population, in the following areas: (1) Taxonomy, abundance, reproductive success, age structure, distribution, habitat selection, food habits, population density and trends, and habitat trends; (2) historical and current population status and trends; (3) historical and current distribution; (4) migratory movements and behavior; (5) genetic population structure, as compared to other populations; (6) the effects of vessel strikes, entanglements, acoustic impacts, and climate change, on the distribution and abundance of Central North Pacific humpback whales and their principal prey over the short- and long-term; (7) the effects of other threats, including whaling, disease and predation, contaminants, fishing, industrial activities, or other known or potential threats; (8) the effects of research on Central North Pacific humpback whales; (9) management or conservation programs for Central North Pacific humpback whales, including mitigation measures associated with private, tribal or governmental conservation programs which benefit this population; and (10) current or planned activities that may adversely impact humpback whales. We request that all information and data be accompanied by supporting documentation such as (1) maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior; National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Proposed rules; extension of comment periods.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively referred to as the “Services” or “we”), announce the extension of the public comment periods on our May 12, 2014, proposals to revise definitions and regulations regarding critical habitat. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of each final rule.
We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before October 9, 2014. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
○ Submit comments on the proposed revised definition of destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0072; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
○ Submit comments on the proposed rule to amend the regulations for designating critical habitat to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2012-0096; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will accept written comments and information during this extended comment period on our proposed rule to revise the definition of destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat and our proposed rule to amend the regulations for designating critical habitat that were published in the
If you submitted comments or information on either proposed rule during the public comment period that began May 12, 2014, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final rules.
You may submit your comments and materials regarding either proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
If you submit a comment via
On May 12, 2014, we published three related documents concerning designation and implementation of critical habitat under the Act: Two proposed regulation amendments and one draft policy. This notice extends the comment period for the two proposed regulation amendments, and a separate notice published elsewhere in today's issue of the
Specifically, the proposed rule to revise the definition of destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposes to amend title 50, part 402, of the Code of Federal Regulations, which implements the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The proposed rule to revise the regulations for designating critical habitat proposes to amend portions of title 50, part 424, of the Code of Federal Regulations, which also implements the Act. Part 424 clarifies, interprets, and implements portions of the Act concerning the procedures and criteria used for adding species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants and designating and revising critical habitat. Specifically, we propose to amend portions of part 424 that clarify procedures for designating and revising critical habitat. The proposed amendments would make minor edits to the scope and purpose, add and remove some definitions, and clarify the criteria for designating critical habitat.
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Endangered Species Program, Headquarters Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request extension of approval of an information collection for self-certification medical statements.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 25, 2014.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on self-certification medical statements, contact Ms. Carmen Queen-Hines, Branch Chief, Human Resources Division, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 21, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2918. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
In accordance with 5 CFR part 339, Federal agencies are authorized to obtain medical information from applicants for positions that have approved medical standards. Medical standards may be established for positions for which the duties are arduous or hazardous or require a certain level of health status or fitness.
Certain positions in MRP agencies have medical standards. MRP hires individuals each year who work under dusty conditions, around moving machinery and slippery surfaces, and in areas with high noise levels. The MRP agencies require a self-certification medical statement (MRP Form 5-R) from applicants for these positions regarding their fitness for the positions. The MRP agencies need this information to determine whether the applicants can perform the duties of the positions. Inability to collect this information would adversely affect the MRP agencies' ability to make employment decisions and determinations regarding an applicant's physical fitness to safely and efficiently perform assigned duties.
Since the last approval of this collection activity, the number of applicants for certain positions that require medical standards has decreased; therefore, the number of respondents using the self-certification medical statement has decreased. As a result, the estimated annual number of respondents has decreased from 524 to 322, and the estimated total annual burden has decreased from 88 hours to 54 hours.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of this information collection activity for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Forest Resource Coordinating Committee (Committee) will meet via teleconference. The Committee is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. II), and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the Act) (Pub. L. 110-246). Additional information concerning the Committee can be found by visiting the Committee's Web site at:
The teleconferences will be held on the following dates:
• July 16, 2014.
• September 17, 2014.
• October 15, 2014.
• November 19, 2014.
• December 17, 2014.
The time of the meetings will be from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST). Each meeting is subject to cancellation. For status of the
The meetings will be held via teleconference. For anyone who would like to attend the teleconferences, please visit the Web site listed in the “
Karl Dalla Rosa, Designated Federal Officer, Cooperative Forestry staff, 202-205-6206. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meetings is to share information that will guide the committee in making recommendations regarding national priorities for non-industrial private forest land and related USDA programs. The teleconferences are open to the public. However, the public is strongly encourage to RVSP prior to the conference call to ensure all related documents are shared with public meeting participants. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing 10 days before the planned meeting to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Laurie Schoonhoven, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 1123, Washington, DC 20250 or by email to
On February 19, 2014, Mercury Marine, operator of Subzone 41H, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facilities located in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
The Virginia Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 20, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Becker Hydraulics USA, Inc. (BHUI), located in Chesapeake, Virginia. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on June 4, 2014.
The BHUI facility is located within Site 9 of FTZ 20. The facility is used for the production of hydraulic hose lines used in agricultural equipment, construction equipment, and marine engine applications. 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 BHUI from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, BHUI would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to hydraulic hose lines (2.5%) 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: rubber hydraulic hoses-wire reinforced; hose fittings and adapters; and, formed/molded rubber hoses (duty rate ranges 3.1 to 3.7%).
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 August 5, 2014.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Pierre Duy at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On March 3, 2014, the Department of Commerce
Matthew Renkey, Enforcement and Compliance, Office V, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2312.
On March 3, 2014, the Department initiated the first sunset review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel threaded rod from the PRC, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(1).
We received a complete substantive response from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
The merchandise covered by the
Included in the scope of the
• 1.80 percent of manganese, or
• 1.50 percent of silicon, or
• 1.00 percent of copper, or
• 0.50 percent of aluminum, or
• 1.25 percent of chromium, or
• 0.30 percent of cobalt, or
• 0.40 percent of lead, or
• 1.25 percent of nickel, or
• 0.30 percent of tungsten, or
• 0.012 percent of boron, or
• 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
• 0.10 percent of niobium, or
• 0.41 percent of titanium, or
• 0.15 percent of vanadium, or
• 0.15 percent of zirconium.
Steel threaded rod is currently classifiable under subheading 7318.15.5051, 7318.15.5056, 7318.15.5090, and 7318.15.2095 of the United States Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Excluded from the scope of the
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China” (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”) from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the order was to be revoked. Parties may find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (“IA ACCESS”). Access to IA ACCESS is available in the Central Records Unit room 7046 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at
We determine that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary
This sunset review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, Formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Yasmin Nair at (202) 482-3813 or David Cordell at (202) 482-0408, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On May 13, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a countervailing duty investigation on 53-foot domestic dry containers from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, if the petitioner makes a timely request for an extension in accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act allows the Department to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation.
On June 18, 2014, the petitioner
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The U. S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, is organizing an executive-led Trade Mission to South Africa and Mozambique, with an optional stop in Kenya. The mission will take place February 23-27, 2015, and is designed to help U.S. firms find business partners and sell equipment and services. Target sectors holding high potential for U.S. exporters include:
• Energy Equipment and Services, such as: Power generation (including renewable energy); transmission and distribution, energy efficiency, oil and gas exploration and production and project development.
• Transportation Infrastructure and Equipment, such as: Road, bridge and dam construction and reconstruction; automatic fare collection systems, new and refurbished railroad locomotives, new bulk car and other dedicated rolling freight fleets, smart signaling and rail operation automation, rolling stock depot design, strategic route design and network planning, port mobile, weighbridges and quayside systems and upgrading of existing port equipment and oil and gas development infrastructure.
• Agricultural Equipment, such as: Crop production equipment and machinery, irrigation equipment and technology, crop storage and handling, precision farming technologies and fertilizers.
• Medical Technologies, such as: Diagnostic imaging equipment, laboratory equipment, patient aids, innovative minimally invasive devices and dental and optometry equipment.
Although focused on the sectors above, the mission also will consider participation from companies in other appropriate sectors as space permits.
The mission will go to Johannesburg, South Africa and Maputo, Mozambique. In addition, there will be an optional stop in Nairobi, Kenya before the Johannesburg stop.
Led by a senior executive of the Department of Commerce, the trade mission will include one-on-one business appointments with pre-screened potential buyers, agents, distributors and joint venture partners; meetings with national and regional government officials, chambers of commerce, and business groups; and networking receptions. The mission will help participating firms and trade associations gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects, with the goal of increasing U.S. exports to Kenya, South Africa and Mozambique. Participating in this official U.S. industry delegation, rather than traveling on their own, will enhance delegates' abilities to secure meetings in these markets.
Kenya, with a population of 43 million, is the dominant economy in Eastern Africa. Given its position as the economic, commercial, and logistical
Kenya also boasts a large number of well-educated English-speaking, and multi-lingual professionals, and a strong entrepreneurial tradition. Doing business in Kenya includes a number of challenges, such as poverty, crime, unemployment, limited infrastructure, and corruption.
South Africa, a country of 52 million people, has the most advanced, broad-based industrial economy in Africa, enjoys relative macroeconomic stability and boasts sound financial, legal and accounting institutions. It remains the primary choice for U.S. companies wishing to develop the promising markets of sub-Saharan Africa, although it suffers from large disparities in income distribution, and has recently seen its international credit rating slip. In 2012 South Africa's gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 2.0% to $417 billion.
Mozambique, with a population of 23 million, grew its economy from 1994 to 2009 at an average rate of 8% per year—one of the fastest rates of growth of any sub-Saharan African economy over this period. In 2013, GDP reached $15 billion. While the country was devastated after the war in 1992, it has since benefited from macroeconomic reforms and large foreign investment projects.
Though infrastructure remains weak and the population is still largely rural, the government is committed to building a strong commercial environment. U.S. investment in the energy sector, particularly off-shore natural gas, is expected to grow tremendously in the next several years, though the U.S. has traditionally been a relatively minor trading partner.
In response to strong economic growth and increasing demand for electricity, Kenya is focused on developing its power generation and transmission and distribution infrastructure. Today, Kenya is faced with numerous brownouts, blackouts, and power surges that damage equipment and necessitate emergency power, driving up the cost of electricity. The supply deficit and costly short-term solutions impede economic growth, and reduce the competitiveness of Kenya's private sector in the region. With only 25% of the population connected to the grid, the Kenyan government plans to connect an additional 5000MW of power and reduce electricity tariffs by 40% by 2016.
Kenya principally relies on hydropower, whose supply is impacted by drought; and thermal power, which is sensitive to global fuel prices. However, extensive plans are underway to develop geothermal, wind, and other renewable energy sources. Kenya has world-class potential for geothermal energy production with development in other renewable energy sectors expected.
Kenya is an increasingly promising player in the booming East Africa oil and gas market. The multiple onshore discoveries announced since 2012 have led exploration and production companies to sound optimistic notes about the country's potential. One firm estimates that Kenya's resource base could amount to 10 billion barrels, though exploration is still in early phases. The greatest enthusiasm surrounds offshore resources, where drillers hope to replicate Mozambique and Tanzania's vast natural gas discoveries.
Electricity supply constraints are significant and are expected to remain a feature of South Africa's social and economic landscape for several years to come. ESKOM, the government owned power utility, with a virtual monopoly on generation, transmission and distribution (responsible for around 95% of local generation) is experiencing budgetary and infrastructure challenges. As a result of these challenges, the government has put a renewed focus on the increased generation of power, increased energy efficiency and decreased consumption. ESKOM's reserve of power has recently become so low that it has been forced to utilize its contractual rights with large industrial users to require them to reduce consumption at critical times. It has also been forced to use expensive diesel to power generators at peak load periods. Though there is current and planned infrastructure investment to ensure future supply, there have been significant delays in bringing these planned power generation facilities on line.
ESKOM is currently investigating smart grid as an option to manage peak load demand. Renewable energy programs have also been introduced in order to facilitate clean renewable independent energy production. The government's Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement program (REIPPP) has been relatively successful and marks the first time independent power producers have been allowed to sell power back to the grid. However, local content requirements, which have increased in recent months, may limit potential U.S. exports.
Further capital expenditure is ongoing with the two large scale coal-fired plants under construction (Medupi Power Station (4800 MW) and Kusile Power Station (4800 MW) as well as a pumped storage project (1332 MW) and a wind energy facility (100 MW). In a recent state of the nation address, President Zuma also reintroduced a plan to bring nuclear energy back to the fore in South Africa.
South Africa boasts the world's eighth largest supply of technically recoverable shale gas resources, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration. In 2012, the government lifted a moratorium on exploring the country's estimated 390 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of unconventional deposits. While licenses have yet to be issued, President Zuma in June announced that the government would proceed with shale gas development plans, indicating the government's willingness to move forward with development in the sector.
Mozambique is set to become one of the world's largest new suppliers of natural gas. The country's massive offshore discoveries have launched a scramble among exploration and production companies to develop these new-found resources. Although much of the Mozambique's offshore acreage still remains underexplored, one U.S. company has already announced finds totaling some 45-65 tcf of recoverable gas reserves. By some estimates, the country's vast resources could support up to ten LNG trains, and developers aim to begin LNG exports in 2018.
Mozambique is a net exporter of energy. The vast majority of power produced in the country comes from the Cahora Bassa hydro-power scheme in central Mozambique, where a planned multi-million dollar “North Bank” expansion with potential opportunities for U.S. suppliers. It will add an additional 1250 MW with transmission lines to South Africa, the South African Power Pool, Maputo, and Northern Mozambique. Planning for a second multi-billion dollar, 1500-plus MW hydropower dam 35 miles downstream at Mphanda Nkuwa is well underway, and the operators are expected to
Kenya enjoys an extensive, but uneven, infrastructure that is still superior in many cases to that of its neighbors. Nairobi is the undisputed transportation hub of Eastern and Central Africa and the largest city between Cairo and Johannesburg. The Port of Mombasa is the most important deep-water port in the region, supplying the shipping needs of more than a dozen countries despite persistent deficiencies in equipment, inefficiency and corruption. As a result of these deficiencies, the Port of Mombasa has been earmarked for major expansion and re-habilitation.
Kenya's “Vision 2030” infrastructure development plans call for significant improvements to the provision of water, renewable energy, ICT, housing, roads, bridges, railways, seaports and airports over the next 20 years. The construction industry in Kenya is driven primarily by two key infrastructure sectors: Transportation and housing, given the large housing deficit that exists in Kenya. Construction and infrastructure development will also present new opportunities, especially with the passage of the new public-private partnership (PPP) law which will make government procurements more transparent and less risky. This development was supported by the massive road infrastructure projects and the high demand for decent housing due to rapidly expanding population.
South Africa's government has announced and allocated initial funding for significant transportation infrastructure capital investments. In 2012 the government announced the allocation of funding for investments estimated at over $90 billion over 15 years. Though there have been complaints of slow implementation, leading some contractors to re-focus business elsewhere in the continent, in late 2013 and early 2014 commitments were made to procure passenger rolling stock, locomotives, signaling and track upgrades. Also, the development of the significant Durban phase 2 port extension (in the old Durban International Airport precinct) has been initiated.
The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa) of the SA Department of Transport (SADOT) in March 2012 announced a 20-year rail improvement program estimated at more than $13.6 billion. Of this, $1.3 billion will be invested in signaling, new depots, modern stations and integrated ticketing, while $1.1 billion is being spent on new locomotives.
The State Owned Enterprise (SOE), Transnet Freight Rail (TFR) and others are considering finalizing logistics projects such as upgrading the Sishen—Saldanha Bay ore line, the Richard Bay coal line and other new coal line networks in the northwest. Transnet's rail and port projects are reportedly set to cost around $30 billion over seven years and include augmenting the tractive and bulk car fleet, signaling, maintenance, advanced train management systems and network expansion/concession models. For the second large diesel locomotive program of 465 units, one U.S. and one Chinese manufacturer were selected as preferred bidders in February 2014.
Transnet Port Terminals (TPT), the port operating SOE is set to invest $3.3 billion over the next seven years for the expansion and improvement of its bulk and container terminals. Significant capacity-creating projects included the expansion of the Durban Container Terminal's (DCT's) Pier 1 that would increase its capacity from 700,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) to 820,000 TEUs by 2013 and 1.2 million TEUs by 2016/17. Other expansion projects include the Ngqura Container Terminal, Durban Ro-Ro and Maydon Wharf terminal, the iron-ore bulk terminal at the Port of Saldanha and the ageing Richards Bay Terminal where $370 million is set aside for mobile and quayside equipment, as well as weighbridges.
Transport networks and infrastructure will be instrumental to developing Mozambique's growth potential in the near and long term. The recently concluded $500 million Millennium Challenge Corporation compact funded extensive rehabilitation of key roads, a dam, and a water supply project in two northern provinces. The Government of Mozambique is investing heavily in expanding rail and port capacity to manage the rising production of mineral resources. A rail line to the deepest natural port on the East Coast of Africa should significantly lower coal transport costs, and two foreign companies have recently been contracted to begin work on a new rail line ending at Macuze port. As total coal exports are projected to reach 40 million tons per year by 2015 and long term estimates are in the range of 100 million tons per year, infrastructure around this sector remains a priority. In addition, rapid investment in infrastructure to support planned LNG projects in northern Mozambique, one of its least developed regions, could bring vast opportunities to U.S. firms.
Agriculture remains the backbone of Kenya's economy. It accounts for about 24% of GDP directly and 75% of the labor force indirectly. Cash crop (tea, coffee, and horticulture), food crops (maize, wheat and rice), and livestock dominate the agricultural sector. Kenyan agriculture faces many challenges. It is predominately rainfall dependent and thus subject to wide production variances. It is undercapitalized, implying low technological absorption resulting in low productivity. Small-scale farmers contribute about 75% to the country's total value of agricultural output and account for nearly 85% of total employment in the agricultural sector. These attributes, coupled with challenges arising from limited institutional capacity, poor infrastructure, and risks associated with liberalized markets, explain the relative stagnation of agricultural productivity and incomes.
Kenya's horticulture industry is a major export success in Africa. It is almost entirely dominated by the private sector and provides many opportunities for increased importation of fertilizers, pesticides and equipment. Similar opportunities lie in Kenya's floriculture industry, which is the leading exporter of fresh cut flowers to the flower auction in Holland. Other important commodities include maize, tea, coffee, sugarcane and wheat, which will require additional use of fertilizers as production grows. The government has embarked on a mechanization program to see the increase in use of more modern means of farming so as to increase output. In addition, the government has set aside 1.2 million acres of land for irrigation that will grow maize, wheat and livestock farming. Agricultural equipment is tax exempt under the VAT Act 2013 to provide support to the sector.
Kenya imports virtually all of its agricultural chemicals as there is no significant local production. Unlike many sub-Saharan African countries, Kenya's fertilizer use has almost doubled since the liberalization of the market in the 1990s, and the removal of government price controls and import licensing quotas. The growth in use has
South Africa has by far the most modern, productive and diverse agricultural economy in Sub Saharan Africa. Agriculture in South Africa remains an important sector despite its relatively small contribution to the GDP. The sector plays an important role in terms of job creation, especially in rural areas, but is also a foremost earner of foreign exchange.
South Africa has a market-oriented agricultural economy that is highly diversified, including production of all the major grains (except rice), oilseeds, deciduous and subtropical fruits, sugar, citrus, wine and most vegetables. Livestock production includes cattle, dairy, pigs, sheep, and a well-developed broiler and egg industry. Value-added sector activities include slaughtering, processing and preserving of meat; processing and preserving of fruit and vegetables; dairy products; grain mill products; crushing of oilseeds; prepared animal feeds; and sugar refining amongst other food products. South Africa also exports wine, corn, mohair, groundnuts, karakul pelts, sugar, and wool.
South Africa offers U.S. exporters in the agricultural equipment and technology sector a wide range of opportunities. Five % of all new agriculture equipment is being produced locally; ninety five % of all agriculture equipment and parts are being sourced from international markets, and at least twenty % of new equipment and technologies are currently being sourced from the U.S.
Agriculture currently accounts for 81% of national employment and 32% of GDP. Mozambique requires great investment to drive the adoption of new technology in agriculture, which is needed for growth in the sector to keep pace with the country's overall GDP growth.
Mozambique, the size of Texas and Louisiana combined, boasts 36 million hectares of arable land, yet 85% of it (30.6 million hectares) is unutilized and only 3% of all potential agricultural land is under irrigation. Mozambique's vast potential in the agriculture sector has prompted major U.S. agribusiness companies to consider establishing commercial farms there.
The Kenyan healthcare market relies almost entirely on imports of medical devices, pharmaceuticals (at least 70-80%), dental products, laboratory equipment, healthcare IT, clinical chemistry and diagnostics. As a result, U.S. healthcare suppliers are in an excellent position to increase their market share in Kenya due to technical competitiveness in quality and reliability.
Leading private sector hospitals are very active in modernizing their medical equipment inventories, while public sector hospitals are constantly re-equipping with improved budgetary allocations. There are concerted efforts by the Government of Kenya to attain universal healthcare for all Kenyans by 2030. Additionally, there are 47 county governments recently established, each of which is responsible for providing health facilities and services. It is expected that that a large portion of their funding from the central government will be used to re-equip county health facilities.
South Africa's health sector is considered the most developed in Africa, with expenditures estimated at 31.6 billion (2013), 9% of GDP. Healthcare is divided into public (50% of total spent on 80% of the population) and private (50% of total on 20% of the population). Government spending is likely to increase as they further develop and support the roll-out of the National Health Initiative scheme. Healthcare in the private sector is on par with first-world standards.
Over 90% of the medical market is imported, with the U.S. being the dominant supplier. There are good opportunities for U.S. medical device manufacturers, notably in diagnostic imaging and patient aids.
The U.S. alone has invested over $1.9 billion in healthcare in Mozambique via the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). In fiscal year 2012, the U.S. Government supported the health sector with over $340 million toward HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, maternal child health, family planning reproductive health, nutrition and water and sanitation programming. These efforts are coordinated with the Government of Mozambique to improve quality and access to health care services. National spending on health has grown and U.S. companies can play a key role in improving the health and livelihoods of Mozambicans.
The goal of this trade mission is to provide U.S. participants with first-hand market information, and one-on-one meetings with business contacts, including potential agents, distributors and partners so they can position themselves to enter or expand their presence in these markets.
This mission will visit Johannesburg and Maputo, following an optional stop in Nairobi, allowing participants to access the largest markets and business centers in these countries.
All parties interested in participating in the trade mission must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the U.S. 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 15 and maximum of 20 firms and/or trade associations or organizations will be selected from the applicant pool to participate in the mission.
After a company or trade association/organization has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the U.S. Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The participation fee for the Kenya portion is $1950 for small or medium-sized enterprises (SME),
The participation fee for the Mozambique and South Africa portion is $3,450 for small or medium-sized enterprises (SME)
The participation fee for all three countries is $5,400 for small or medium-sized enterprises (SME)
The mission fee does not include any personal travel expenses such as lodging, most meals, local ground transportation and air transportation. Delegate members will however, be able to take advantage of U.S. Government rates for hotel rooms. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are also not included in the mission costs. However, the U.S. Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain necessary business visas.
Applicants must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's or association/organization's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation by December 31, 2014. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may either: Reject the application, request additional information/clarification, 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 U.S., or, if not, are marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one % U.S. content. In the case of a trade association or organization, the applicant must certify that for each company to be represented by the association/organization, the products and/or services the represented company seeks to export are either produced in the U.S. or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one % U.S. content.
In addition, each applicant must:
• Certify that the products and services that it wishes to market 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 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.
Targeted mission participants are U.S. companies and trade associations/organizations providing or promoting products and services that have an interest in entering or expanding their business in the markets of Kenya, South Africa and Mozambique. The following criteria will be evaluated in selecting participants:
• Suitability of a company's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented companies') products or services to these markets.
• Company's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented companies') potential for business in the markets, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission.
• Consistency of the applicant company's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented companies') goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission.
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, including the application, 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 this mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than December 31, 2014. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a rolling basis beginning June 23, 2014 until the maximum of 20 participants is selected. Applications received after December 31, 2014 will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 25, 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 Dede McMahon,
Sponsored by NIST, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is a national network of locally based manufacturing extension centers working with small manufacturers to assist them improve their productivity, improve profitability and enhance their economic competitiveness. The information collected will provide the MEP with information regarding MEP Center performance regarding the delivery of technology, and business solutions to U.S.-based manufacturers. The collected information will assist in determining the performance of the MEP Centers at both local and national levels, provide information critical to monitoring and reporting on MEP programmatic performance, and assist management in policy decisions. Responses to the collection of information are mandatory per the regulations governing the operation of the MEP Program (15 CFR parts 290, 291, 292, and H.R. 1274—section 2). The information collected will include MEP Customer inputs regarding their sales, costs, investments, employment, and exports. Customers will take the survey online. Customers will only be surveyed once per year under this collection. Data collected in this survey is confidential.
Information will be collected electronically.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Guard Bureau, DoD.
Notice to add a new System of Records.
The National Guard Bureau proposes to add a new system of records, INGB 007, entitled, “Guard Equipment Acquisition Records” to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. The information in this system will be used to track designated personnel authorized to manage records for new
Comments will be accepted on or before July 28, 2014. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
Ms. Jennifer Nikolaisen, 111 South George Mason Drive, AH2, Arlington, VA 22204-1373 or telephone: (571) 256-7838.
The National Guard Bureau 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 March 14, 2014, 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).
Guard Equipment Acquisition Records.
National Guard Bureau Army National Guard Materiel Programs Division: Planning and Integration, 111 South George Mason Drive, Arlington, VA 22204-1382.
Department of Defense military and civilian personnel assigned to National Guard Bureau Army National Guard Materiel Programs Division.
Full name of individual managing records; organizational email address; organizational telephone; and military rank/grade.
10 U.S.C. 10502, Chief, National Guard Bureau; Department of Defense Instruction 7045.7: Implementation of the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting Systems (PPBS); and Department of Defense Instruction 1225.06: Equipping the Reserve Forces.
To track designated personnel authorized to manage records for new equipment requirements and distribution to Army National Guard units.
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:
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses may apply to this system.
Electronic storage media.
Records are retrieved by individual's name.
Access to the database is strictly limited to authorized individuals with common access cards (CAC) issued by the DoD, and the database is maintained behind a firewall. Physical security measures include security guards, controlled access using CACs, and cipher locks.
Disposition pending, records are permanent until the National Archives and Record Administration has approved a retention and disposition schedule for the National Guard Bureau.
National Guard Bureau Army National Guard Materiel Programs Division: Planning and Integration, 111 S. George Mason Drive, Arlington, VA 22204-1382.
Individuals wishing to inquire if the system contains information about themselves should contact the system manager at National Guard Bureau Army National Guard Materiel Programs Division: Planning and Integration Branch Manager, 111 S. George Mason Drive, Arlington, VA 22204-1382.
Written requests must include a signed declaration and include the individual's first, middle and last name, and full mailing address in order to receive a response.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to: Branch Manager, Army National Guard Materiel Programs Division: Planning and Integration, 111 S. George Mason Drive, Arlington, VA 22204-1382.
Written requests must include a signed declaration and include their first, middle and last name, and full mailing address in order to receive a response.
The National Guard Bureau rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published at 32 CFR Part 329 or may be obtained from the system manager.
User information is provided by individual user.
None.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of Availability.
The Department of the Army has completed a Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Assessment (SPEA) for Army force structure realignment and is making a draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) available for public comment. The draft FNSI incorporates the SPEA, which does not identify any significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, with the exception of socioeconomic impacts at most installations. The draft FNSI concludes that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required.
Current budgetary projections require the Army to analyze the reduction of active component end strength below the 490,000 Soldier reduction analyzed in the January 2013 Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Army 2020 Force Structure Realignment (PEA) as the further reductions exceed the scope of the 2013 PEA analysis. The SPEA builds on the foundation of the 2013 PEA and assesses the impacts of a potential reduction of an additional 70,000 Soldiers and associated reductions in Army civilians, down to an Active Component end-strength of 420,000 Soldiers. These reductions are necessary to achieve the savings required by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
Nearly all Army installations will be affected in some way by additional reductions. The 2013 PEA evaluated 21 Army and joint base installations. With the deeper reductions now anticipated, the Army must consider nine additional installations that could experience reductions of 1,000 or more Active Component Soldiers and/or Army civilians.
The SPEA does not identify any significant environmental impacts anticipated as a result of implementing the proposed action, with the exception of socioeconomic impacts at most installations; consequently, the preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required.
Submit comments on or before August 25, 2014.
Written comments should be sent to: U.S. Army Environmental Command, ATTN: SPEA Public Comments, 2450 Connell Road (Building 2264), Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-7664; email:
Please contact the U.S. Army Environmental Command Public Affairs Office, (210) 466-1590 or toll-free 855-846-3940, or email at
In 2013, the Army announced a reduction of its force from a war time peak of about 570,000 in 2010 to 490,000, as well as a substantial realignment of the remaining force. These changes were required to achieve the savings specified in the Budget Control Act of 2011 and to adjust force structure to meet evolving mission requirements. To analyze their potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts, the Army prepared the 2013 PEA. Since the 2013 PEA was completed, however, Department of Defense mission and fiscal considerations have continued to change, and the future end-strength of the Army must be reduced below the 490,000 covered by the 2013 PEA. The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) states that the active Army will reduce to a force of 440,000-450,000 Soldiers. The 2014 QDR also states if sequestration-level cuts are imposed in FY 2016 and beyond, Active Component end-strength would be reduced to 420,000. As a result, the Army has prepared a SPEA, building on the information and analysis contained in the 2013 PEA, to assess the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of further reductions and to provide information to decision makers and the public.
The installations that could experience reductions of 1,000 or more Active Component Soldiers and/or Army civilians—the appropriate threshold for inclusion of installations at the programmatic level of analysis—and which are specifically analyzed in the SPEA are Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD; Fort Belvoir, VA; Fort Benning, GA; Fort Bliss, TX; Fort Bragg, NC; Fort Campbell, KY; Fort Carson, CO; Fort Drum, NY; Fort Gordon, GA; Fort Hood, TX; Fort Huachuca, AZ; Fort Irwin, CA; Fort Jackson, SC; Fort Knox, KY; Fort Leavenworth, KS; Fort Lee, VA; Fort Leonard Wood, MO; Fort Meade, MD; Fort Polk, LA; Fort Riley, KS; Fort Rucker, AL; Fort Sill, OK; Fort Stewart, GA; Fort Wainwright, AK; Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK; Joint Base Langley-Eustis, VA; Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA; Joint Base San Antonio—Fort Sam Houston, TX; and, United States Army Garrison Hawaii (Fort Shafter and Schofield Barracks), HI. The SPEA provides an assessment of the possible direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the greatest combined Soldier and Army civilian reductions being considered at each installation.
In addition to the action alternative, the Army also evaluated a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative reflects the FY 2012 force structure and retains the Army at the FY 2012 authorized end-strength of about 562,000 Active Component Soldiers and 320,000 Army civilians. While some reductions have already been decided on since the April 2013 FNSI was signed, based on the 2013 PEA, the No Action Alternative in the SPEA allows for a comparison of baseline conditions with the environmental impacts of the action alternative.
Environmental resource areas associated with the implementation of the proposed action, and therefore analyzed in the SPEA, are air quality, airspace, cultural resources, noise, soils, biological resources, wetlands, water resources, facilities, socioeconomics, energy demand and generation, land use, hazardous materials and waste, and traffic and transportation. Although no installations were identified as having potentially significant impacts to environmental resources should the full reductions be implemented, the SPEA concludes that most installations would have significant socioeconomic impacts.
As was the case for the 2013 PEA, the reductions assessed in the SPEA are not tied to specific units. Options to achieve this additional force restructure are too numerous for analysis at this time; therefore, analysis of reductions related to specific units or organizations are not within the programmatic scope of the SPEA. During the force structure decision process, the Army will identify those units and organizations to be affected by reductions over the 2015-2020 timeframe so as to meet the Army's national security mission and operate within a constrained fiscal environment.
The SPEA and draft FNSI may be accessed at:
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 25, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of Naval Research (ONR), ATTN: Will Brown, Talent Manager, 875 North Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203; or
Non-government personnel (Contractors and Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPAs) staff) comprise approximately half of ONR's total workforce population. As such, surveying these non-government personnel is required to capture a holistic view of the total ONR workforce and provide leaders with information to make informed workforce decisions. These “contingent” workforce members perform a wide-range of functions and are uniquely qualified individuals brought in to support science and technology management. These individuals move across the organization adapting quickly to new issues and projects. They must understand customers and the interworking of ONR. They represent the core of the cross-functional matrix team concept and act as facilitators and nodes among specialist and government professionals. The combination of these contingent workers and government personnel comprise the ONR workforce of the future. Truly understanding the concerns and motivation of this segment of the workforce will facilitate increased creativity and discretionary effort across the enterprise.
The information collected in the survey will be used by ONR executives to measure performance of the organization, proactively inform workforce engagement strategies for greater resonance and impact, and prepare for and implement organizational changes in the near- and long-term.
ONR continues to experience significant organizational and operational changes. In order to successfully and efficiently implement these changes, the Chief of Naval Research must understand information related to the following: (1) The degree of organizational coherence behind executing strategic goals and priorities; (2) data to measure performance of the organization and proactively inform workforce engagement strategies to optimize resonance and impact; and (3) how to prepare for and implement organizational changes in the near- and long-term. Currently, no databases or surveys exist to provide information on these areas as it relates to the total ONR workforce. The ONR As One survey is designed to provide the three information needs described above by surveying the ONR workforce. As an online survey, it is the most cost- and time-effective means for collecting the required information. Because nongovernment employees comprise approximately half of ONR's total workforce, it is imperative that these workforce member types are included in the survey population. The feedback from these workforce member types is critical to the goal of capturing an accurate representation of the ONR total workforce on the measures that are of interest to the organization's leadership: The information collected in the survey will be used to measure performance of the organization, proactively inform workforce engagement strategies for greater resonance and impact, and prepare for and implement organizational changes in the near- and long-term. All information will be collected by an online survey and all data will be reported in the aggregate.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant Unified Operations, LLC a revocable, nonassignable, partially exclusive license, with exclusive fields of use in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction, construction, wholesale trade, warehousing, retail estate and rental and leasing, administrative and support and waste management and remediation services, arts, entertainment, and recreation, accommodation and food services, ultra light & barriers/barricades, health care and social assistance, educational services, in the United States to practice the Government-owned inventions, U.S. Patent No. 7,156,249, issued January 2, 2007: Container and Related Methods//U.S. Patent No. 7,726,496, issued June 1, 2010: Shipping and Storage System//U.S. Patent No. 7,491,024, issued February 17, 2009: Interlocking Pallets, and Shipping and Storage Systems Employing the Same//U.S. Patent No. 7,739,965, issued June 22, 2010: Automatically Interlocking Pallets, and Shipping and Storage Systems Employing the Same.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than July 11, 2014.
Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division (IHEODTD), Code OC4, Bldg. D-31, 3824 Strauss Avenue, Indian Head, MD 20640-5152.
Dr. J. Scott Deiter, Head, Technology Transfer Office, Naval Surface Warfare Center IHEODTD, Code CAB, 3824 Strauss Avenue, Indian Head, MD 20640-5152, telephone 301-744-6111.
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR Part 404.
Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.
Notice of an altered system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the Chief Operating Officer for Federal Student Aid (FSA) of the U.S. Department of Education (Department) publishes this notice to revise the system of records previously maintained by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) entitled “Health Education Assistance On-Line Processing System (HOPS)” (09-15-0044) because of the statutory transfer of the underlying loan program to the Department. As revised, the Department is retitling and renumbering the system of records as the “Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) program” (18-11-20).
The revisions are consistent with the amendments made by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, which permanently transferred the authority to administer the HEAL program from the Secretary of Health and Human Services to the Secretary of Education.
Submit your comments on this notice of an altered system of records on or before July 28, 2014.
Because Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Appendix I, indicates that minor changes to systems of records need not be reported, such as the minor changes made to the HEAL program system of records by this notice as explained in the
Address all comments about this notice of an altered system of records to: Director, Systems Integration Division, Systems Operations and Aid Delivery Management Services, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, Union Center Plaza (UCP), 830 First Street NE., Room 44F1, Washington, DC 20202-5454. If you prefer to send comments by email, use the following address:
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in room 64D1, UCP, 830 First Street NE., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
On request, we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under
Director, Systems Integration Division, Systems Operations and Aid Delivery Management Services, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, Union Center Plaza (UCP), 830 First Street NE., Room 44F1, Washington, DC 20202-5454. Telephone: 202-377-3547.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Under division H, title V, section 525 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76) and title VII, part A, subpart I of the Public Health Service Act, the authority to administer the HEAL program, including servicing, collecting, and enforcing any loans made under the program that remain outstanding, is transferred from the Secretary of HHS to the Secretary of Education no later than the end of the first fiscal quarter that begins after January 17, 2014—the date of the enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014.
The HEAL program system of records covers records for all activities that the Department carries out with regard to servicing, collecting, and enforcing Federal student loans made under title VII, part A, subpart I of the Public Health Service Act that remain outstanding. The HEAL system also contains records of transactions performed by the Department to carry out the purposes of this system of records.
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11)) requires Federal agencies to publish in the
The Privacy Act applies to records about individuals that contain individually identifying information and that are retrieved by a unique identifier associated with each individual, such as a name or Social Security number. The information about each individual is called a “record,” and the system, whether manual or computer-based, is called a “system of records.”
The revisions to this system of records relate to the transfer of the system from HHS to the Department in accordance with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. The system is being renamed and renumbered from Health Education Assistance On-Line Processing System (HOPS) (09-15-0044) to Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) program (18-11-20). These changes are being made so that the system of records reflects that the HEAL program is now administered by the Department.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid, of the U.S. Department of Education (Department or ED), publishes a notice of an altered system of records to read as follows:
Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) program.
Moderate.
• Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 9-105, Rockville, MD 20857.
• Records are located at additional contractor sites. A list of contractor sites where individually identifiable data are currently located is available upon request to the System Manager.
• Washington National Records Center, 4205 Suitland Road, Suitland, MD 20409.
Recipients of HEAL program loans that remain outstanding.
Each HEAL recipient record contains the borrower's name, Social Security number (SSN) or other identifying number, birth date, demographic background, educational status, loan location and status, and financial information about the individual for whom the record is maintained. Each loan record contains lender and school identification information.
The authority for maintenance of the system includes Sections 701 and 702 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 292 and 292a), which authorize the establishment of a Federal program of student loan insurance; Section 715 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 292n), which directs the Secretary of Education to require institutions to provide information for each student who has a loan; Section 709 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 292h), which authorizes disclosure and publication of HEAL defaulters; the Debt Collection Improvement Act (31 U.S.C. 3701 and 3711-3720E); and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Div. H, title V, section 525 of Pub. L. 113-76, which transfers the authority to administer the HEAL program from the Secretary of Health and Human Services to the Secretary of Education.
The purposes of this system are:
1. To identify borrowers participating in the HEAL program;
2. To monitor the loan status of HEAL recipients, which includes the collection of overdue debts owed under the HEAL program; and
3. To compile and generate managerial and statistical reports.
1. Disclosure may be made to Federal, State, or local agencies, to private parties such as relatives, present and former employers, business and personal associates, educational and financial institutions, and collection agencies. The purposes of such disclosures are to verify the identity of the loan applicant, to determine program eligibility and benefits, to enforce the conditions or terms of the loan, to counsel the borrower in repayment efforts, to investigate possible fraud and abuse, to verify compliance with program regulations, and to locate delinquent borrowers through pre-claims assistance. Information may be disclosed to educational or financial institutions to assist them in loan management.
2. Disclosure may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.
3. ED may disclose information from this system of records to the Department of Justice, or to a court or other tribunal, when: (a) ED or any component thereof; or (b) any ED employee in his or her official capacity; or (c) any ED employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice (or ED, where it is authorized to do so) has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the United States or any agency thereof determines that the litigation is likely to affect ED or any of its components, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and ED determines that the use of such records by the Department of Justice or the court or other tribunal is relevant and necessary to the litigation and would help in the effective representation of the governmental party, provided, however, that in each case, ED determines that such disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
4. In the event that a system of records maintained by this agency to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in
5. ED may disclose from this system of records a delinquent debtor's name, address, SSN, and other information necessary to identify him/her; the amount, status, and history of the claim, and the agency or program under which the claim arose, as follows: (a) To another Federal agency so that agency can effect a salary offset for debts owed by Federal employees; if the claim arose under the Social Security Act, the employee must have agreed in writing to the salary offset. (b) To another Federal agency so that agency can effect an authorized administrative offset, i.e., withhold money payable to, or held on behalf of, debtors other than Federal employees. (c) To the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department), to request a debtor's current mailing address to locate him/her for purposes of either collecting or compromising a debt or to have a commercial credit report prepared.
6. Records may be disclosed to the Office of Management and Budget for auditing financial obligations to determine compliance with programmatic, statutory, and regulatory provisions.
7. ED may disclose information from this system of records to a consumer reporting agency (credit bureau) to obtain a commercial credit report for the following purposes: (a) To establish creditworthiness of a loan applicant; and (b) To assess and verify the ability of a debtor to repay debts owed to the Federal Government. Disclosures are limited to the individual's name, address, SSN, and other information necessary to identify him/her; the funding being sought or amount and status of the debt; and the program under which the application or claim is being processed.
8. ED may disclose to the IRS, Treasury Department, information about an individual applying for a loan under any loan program authorized by the PHS Act to find out whether the loan applicant has a delinquent tax account. This disclosure is for the sole purpose of determining the applicant's creditworthiness and is limited to the individual's name, address, SSN, other information necessary to identify him/her, and the program for which the information is being obtained.
9. ED may report to the IRS, Treasury Department, as taxable income, the written-off amount of a debt owed by an individual to the Federal Government when a debt becomes partly or wholly uncollectible—either because the time period for collection under the statute of limitations has expired, or because the Government agrees with the individual to forgive or compromise the debt.
10. ED may disclose to debt collection agents, other Federal agencies, and other third parties who are authorized to collect a Federal debt, information necessary to identify a delinquent debtor. Disclosure will be limited to the debtor's name, address, SSN, and other information necessary to identify him/her; the amount, status, and history of the claim, and the agency or program under which the claim arose.
11. ED may disclose information from this system of records to any third party that may have information about a delinquent debtor's current address, such as the U.S. Postal Service, a consumer reporting agency (credit bureau), a State motor vehicle administration, a professional organization, an alumni association, etc., for the purpose of obtaining the debtor's current address. This disclosure will be limited to information necessary to identify the individual (defaulter's name, latest known City and State of residence, total amount of the HEAL debt).
12. Records may be disclosed to Department contractors and subcontractors for the purpose of assisting HEAL program managers in collating, compiling, aggregating, or analyzing records used in administering the HEAL program. Contractors maintain, and are also required to ensure that subcontractors maintain, Privacy Act safeguards with respect to the records.
13. ED may disclose from this system of records to the IRS, Treasury Department: (a) A delinquent debtor's name, address, SSN, and other necessary information to identify the debtor; (b) The amount of the debt; and (c) The program under which the debt arose, so that the IRS can offset against the debt any income tax refunds which may be due to the debtor.
14. ED may disclose the complete loan file of defaulted HEAL recipients to potential purchasers of HEAL loans to enable them to value and price the loans, and to actual purchasers to enable them to collect the defaulted loans. The purpose of this disclosure will be to facilitate the sale and collection of defaulted HEAL loans. Potential purchasers are required to maintain Privacy Act safeguards with respect to the records.
15. In accordance with the directive in 42 U.S.C. 292h(c)(1), the names of HEAL borrowers who are in default may be published on a Defaulted Borrowers Web site, should ED reestablish one, by city and State along with the amounts of their HEAL debts. An individual's address also may be published if the address is a matter of public record as a result of legal proceedings having been filed concerning the individual's HEAL debt.
16. In accordance with the directive in 42 U.S.C. 292h(c)(2), disclosure may be made to relevant Federal agencies, schools, school associations, professional and specialty associations, State licensing boards, hospitals with which a HEAL defaulter may be associated, and other similar organizations.
17. To appropriate Federal agencies and Department contractors and subcontractors that have a need to know the information for the purpose of assisting the Department's efforts to respond to a suspected or confirmed breach of the security or confidentiality of information maintained in this system of records, and the information disclosed is relevant and necessary for that assistance.
Disclosures pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) (as set forth in 31 U.S.C. 3711(e)): Disclosures may be made from this system to “consumer reporting agencies,” as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) or the Debt Collection Improvement Act (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)). The purposes of these disclosures are:
1. To provide an incentive for debtors to repay delinquent Federal Government debts by making these debts part of their credit records; and
2. To enable ED to improve the quality of loan and scholarship decisions by taking into account the financial reliability of applicants.
Disclosure of records will be limited to the individual's name, SSN, and other information necessary to establish the identity of the individual; the amount, status, and history of the claim, and the agency or program under which the claim arose.
Records are maintained in database servers, file folders, CDs, DVDs, and magnetic tapes.
Records are retrieved by SSN or other identifying number.
Authorized users: Access is limited to authorized HEAL program personnel and contractors responsible for administering the HEAL program. Authorized personnel include ED employees and officials, financial and fiscal management personnel, computer personnel and program managers who have responsibilities for implementing the HEAL program. Read-only users: Read-only access is given to servicers, holders, and financial/fiscal management personnel.
Physical safeguards: Magnetic tapes, disc packs, computer equipment, and other forms of personal data are stored in areas where fire and life safety codes are strictly enforced. All documents are protected during lunch hours and non-working hours in locked file cabinets or locked storage areas. Security guards are staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to perform random checks on the physical security of the records storage areas.
Procedural safeguards: A password is required to access the terminal and a data set name controls the release of data to only authorized users. All users of personal information in connection with the performance of their jobs protect information from public view and from unauthorized personnel entering an unsupervised office. In addition, all sensitive data is encrypted using Oracle Transparent Data Encryption functionality. Access to records is strictly limited to those staff members trained in accordance with the Privacy Act and automatic data processing (ADP) security procedures. Contractors are required to maintain, and are also required to ensure that subcontractors maintain, confidentiality safeguards with respect to these records. Contractors and subcontractors are instructed to make no further disclosure of the records except as authorized by the System Manager and permitted by the Privacy Act. All individuals who have access to these records receive the appropriate ADP security clearances. ED personnel make site visits to ADP facilities for the purpose of ensuring that ADP security procedures continue to be met. Privacy Act and ADP system security requirements are specifically included in contracts. The HEAL program project directors, project officers, and the System Manager oversee compliance with these requirements.
Implementing guidelines: The safeguards described above were established in accordance with DHHS Chapter 45-13 and supplementary Chapter PHS.hf: 45-13 of HHS' General Administration Manual.
ED is working with its Records Officer and the National Archives and Records Administration to obtain the appropriate record retention schedule.
Director, Systems Integration Division, Systems Operations and Aid Delivery Management Services, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, Union Center Plaza (UCP), 830 First Street NE., Room 44F1, Washington, DC 20202-5454. Telephone: 202-377-3547.
To find out if the system contains records about you contact the System Manager.
Requests in person: Written requests for information and/or access to records received by mail must contain information providing the identity of the writer and a reasonable description of the record desired. Written requests must contain the name and address of the requester, his/her date of birth and at least one piece of information which is also contained in the subject record, and his/her signature for comparison purposes.
Requests by mail: To request information and/or access to records by mail, you must provide your name, address, date of birth, a reasonable description of the record desired, at least one piece of information that is also contained in the subject record, and your signature for comparison purposes.
Requests by telephone: Since positive identification of the caller cannot be established, telephone requests are not accepted.
Same as notification procedures. Requesters should also provide a reasonable description of the record being sought. Requesters may also request an accounting of disclosures that have been made of their records, if any.
Contact the System Manager, provide a reasonable description of the record, specify the information being contested, the corrective action sought, and the reasons for requesting the correction, along with supporting information to show how the record is inaccurate, incomplete, untimely, or irrelevant.
Individual loan recipients, HEAL schools, lenders, holders of HEAL loans and their agents, HHS, and other Federal agencies.
None.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and Request for Comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on the “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery ” for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.). This collection was developed as part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process for seeking feedback from the public on service delivery. This notice announces our intent to submit this collection to OMB for approval and solicits comments on specific aspects for the proposed information collection.
Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before July 28, 2014. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718.
Written comments should be sent to:
Christina Rouleau, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Rd., Room G-312, Germantown, MD 20874, (301) 903-6227,
This information collection request contains:
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Teleconference.
This notice announces a teleconference call of the State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Thursday, July 17, 2014 from 3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EDT). To receive the call-in number and passcode, please contact the Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the address or phone number listed below.
Julie Hughes, STEAB Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585. Phone number: 202-320-9703, and email:
Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Idaho National Laboratory. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, July 10, 2014 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
The opportunity for public comment is at 1:30 p.m.
This time is subject to change; please contact the Federal Coordinator (below) for confirmation of times prior to the meeting.
Hilton Garden Inn, 700 Lindsay Boulevard, Idaho Falls, ID 83402.
Robert L. Pence, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, MS-1203, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415. Phone (208) 526-6518; Fax (208) 526-8789 or email:
Tentative Topics (agenda topics may change up to the day of the meeting; please contact Robert L. Pence for the most current agenda):
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
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 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:
1. On March 7, 2014, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) submitted a petition for approval of proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-2 (Operations Personnel Training) and retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standard PER-005-1 (Systems Personnel Training). Reliability Standard PER-005-2 is designed to ensure that personnel performing or supporting real-time operations on the Bulk-Power System are trained using a systematic approach, and expands the scope of NERC's currently-effective training Reliability Standard to include certain personnel of transmission owners and generator operators, as well as operations support personnel as defined in a proposed new term for the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary or Glossary). In addition, the proposed Reliability Standard includes new implementation period requirements for entities that become subject to the obligation to provide emergency operations training using simulation technology. NERC requests that the proposed standard become effective the first day of the first calendar quarter 24 months beyond the date the standard is approved.
2. As explained below, pursuant to section 215(d) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
3. The Commission certified NERC as the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO), as defined in section 215 of the FPA, in July 2006.
4. In addition, under section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission directed NERC to develop several modifications to the approved PER standards. Specifically, the Commission directed NERC to develop revised or additional standards that would: (1) Identify the expectations of the training for each job function; (2) develop training programs tailored to each job function with consideration of the individual training needs of the personnel; (3) expand the applicability of the training requirements to include: reliability coordinators, local transmission control center operator personnel, generator operators centrally-located at a generation control center with a direct impact on the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System, and operations planning and operations support staff who carry out outage planning and assessments and those who develop
5. In addition, the Commission directed NERC to determine whether it is feasible to develop meaningful performance metrics associated with the effectiveness of a training program required by then-effective Reliability Standard PER-002-0 and to consider whether personnel who support Energy Management System (EMS) applications should be included in mandatory training pursuant to the Reliability Standard.
6. NERC addressed a portion of the Order No. 693 directives in a September 30, 2009 filing, in which it submitted a new proposed standard PER-005-1 (System Personnel Training) along with a revised Reliability Standard, PER-004-2 (Reliability Coordination—Staffing). The Commission approved these proposed Reliability Standards in Order No. 742, finding that the new and revised standards would enhance the reliability of the Bulk-Power System.
7. On March 7, 2014, NERC filed a petition seeking approval of proposed PER-005-2, explaining that the purpose of the revisions is to “improve upon PER-005-1 by expanding the scope of the Reliability Standard” consistent with the Commission's directives in Order Nos. 693 and 742.
8. The revised standard contains six requirements. Requirement R1 requires reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, and transmission operators to use a systematic approach to developing and implementing a training program for system operators, including development of specific task lists and an annual evaluation of the training program. Requirement R2 requires transmission owners to use a systematic approach to developing and implementing a training program for system operators, including development of specific task lists and an annual evaluation of the training program. Pursuant to the applicability section of the standard, this requirement would apply only to “[p]ersonnel, excluding field switching personnel, who can act independently to operate or direct the operation of the Transmission Owner's Bulk Electric System transmission Facilities in Real-time.”
9. Requirement R3 requires reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, transmission operators and transmission owners to verify the capabilities of their personnel as identified in Requirements R1 or R2. Requirement R4 requires reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, transmission operators and transmission owners to provide those personnel identified in Requirement R1 or R2 with emergency operations training using simulation technology to the extent that the entity has (1) operational authority or control over facilities with established IROLs, or (2) established protection systems or operating guides to mitigate IROL violations.
10. Requirement R5 requires reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, and transmission operators to use a systematic approach to develop and implement training for their operations support personnel, providing training on how their job functions impact the real-time reliability-related tasks identified in Requirement R1. Requirement R6 requires applicable generator operators to use a systematic approach to develop and implement training for certain of their dispatch personnel at a centrally located dispatch center (as defined in Applicability Section 4.1.5) on how their job functions impact the reliable operations of the BES.
11. NERC maintains in its petition that PER-005-2 addresses all outstanding directives related to its personnel training requirements from Order Nos. 693 and 742. Specifically, NERC notes that it has expanded the scope of PER-005 to include training requirements for local transmission control center operator personnel; for operations support personnel who perform current day or next day outage coordination or assessments, or who determine SOLs or IROLs or operating nomograms in support of real-time operations; and for certain generator dispatch personnel at centrally located dispatch centers.
12. NERC also maintains that the proposed Reliability Standard addresses the Commission's directive in Order No. 742 to develop an implementation period for those entities that may become subject to the requirement to provide emergency operations training using simulation technology, as Part 4.1 of Requirement R4 provides for a 12 month implementation period for newly-applicable entities.
13. NERC also maintains that the proposed standard improves on the currently-effective standard by “clarifying language in certain requirements and eliminating redundant or unnecessary requirements.”
14. In addition to proposing certain clarifying changes to the currently-effective Glossary term System Operator,
15. Finally, NERC asks that PER-005-2 and associated Glossary terms become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter 24 months after Commission approval. NERC maintains that this implementation period is appropriate because certain functional entities are becoming subject to the standard for the first time, and because it is consistent with the implementation period provided for reliability coordinators, balancing authorities and transmission operators under PER-005-1.
16. Notice of NERC's petition was issued on March 12, 2014, with comments, protests and motions to intervene due on or before April 11, 2014. Two sets of comments were received. A Joint Motion to Intervene and Comments (ISO/RTO Joint Comments) was timely filed by the California Independent System Operator Corporation, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc., Independent Electricity System Operator, ISO New England, Inc., Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., New York Independent System Operator, Inc. and Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (the ISO/RTO Commenters). On April 17, 2014, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) filed a Motion to Intervene and Comment Out-of-Time.
17. The ISO/RTO Commenters support approval of PER-005-2, because it reasonably identifies individuals who may affect real-time system operations/reliability, sets out a reasonable scope for the training obligations, requires applicable entities to verify initial capabilities of their personnel, requires some form of simulation-based training for personnel involved with the operation of facilities that either have an IROL or are used to mitigate an IROL (without dictating the specific type of simulation training), and properly excludes personnel who support EMS applications. While the ISO/RTO Commenters maintain that the proposed standard “encompasses discretion on the part of the functional entities to `identif[y]' which personnel fall within the definition of Operations Support Personnel,” they also ask the Commission to “confirm that functional entities have the discretion to make that identification.”
18. While PJM does not ask the Commission to reject the proposed standard, it criticizes PER-005-2 as “an unnecessary and a potentially ineffective means to address an otherwise straightforward requirement; namely to train appropriate personnel.”
19. Like the Joint ISO/RTO Commenters, PJM notes its concern that there is no standardized job description for operations support personnel, and seeks clarification that responsible entities will be allowed to use reasonable discretion to identify operations support personnel subject to the standard's requirements.
20. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, the timely, unopposed motion to intervene filed by the ISO/RTO Commenters serves to make them parties to this proceeding. Pursuant to Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214(d), we will also grant PJM's late-filed motion to intervene given its interest in the proceeding, the early stage of the proceeding, and the absence of undue prejudice or delay.
21. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the FPA, we approve Reliability Standard PER-005-2 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.
22. We find that PER-005-2 enhances the reliability of the Bulk-Power System by expanding the scope of NERC's currently-effective personnel training requirements to include additional personnel who perform or support real time operations on the Bulk-Power System and who therefore could have a direct impact on the reliability of the Bulk-Power System.
23. In addition, we find that PER-005-2 satisfies several outstanding Commission directives related to personnel training, by: (1) Requiring the systematic development and implementation of training programs for local transmission control center operator personnel of a transmission owner, including emergency operations training; (2) requiring systematic development and implementation of training for operations support personnel who can impact the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System; and (3) requiring systematic development and implementation of training for generator owners' dispatch personnel at centrally located dispatch centers.
24. Further, we find that PER-005-2 includes a reasonable implementation period for entities that may become subject to the standard's requirement to provide emergency operations training using some form of simulation technology. Finally, we find that NERC has adequately considered whether EMS support personnel should be subject to mandatory training requirements under PER-005 or another appropriate standard. However, we note that the standard drafting team's decision to exclude EMS personnel is based on event analyses as of May 2013, and that NERC should reassess this issue if future event analyses do not support this exclusion.
25. Joint ISO/RTO Commenters and PJM request that we “confirm” that applicable entities can exercise “reasonable discretion” to identify the employees that fit within NERC's definition of Operations Support Personnel.
Individuals who perform current day or next day outage coordination or assessments, or who determine SOLs, IROLs, or operating nomograms, in direct support of Real-time operations of the Bulk Electric System.
Thus, the NERC definition of Operations Support Personnel sets forth the parameters of which employees must be trained pursuant to Requirement R5. We agree that applicable entities should exercise reasonable discretion in determining which of their employees fit within that definition. If an issue or uncertainty arises regarding the proper identification of employees, an applicable entity may seek to consult with the relevant Regional Entity or NERC.
26. Finally, with respect to PJM's request to “clarify that an industry-accreditation program . . . can provide an acceptable means for compliance with the PER Standard,”
27. Accordingly, we approve Reliability Standard PER-005-2 pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(2), as we find that it is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. We also approve NERC's proposed implementation plan for the revised standard, including the retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standard PER-005-1, and the proposed violation risk factors and violation severity levels. Finally, we approve the new Glossary term “Operations Support Personnel” and the proposed changes to the Glossary term “System Operator” as described in NERC's petition.
28. The collection of information contained in this order is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
29. This order is effective immediately; however, the revised information collection requirements will not be effective or enforceable until OMB approves the information collection changes described in this order. Comments are solicited on the need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques. Specifically, the Commission asks that any revised burden or cost estimates submitted by commenters be supported by sufficient detail to understand how the estimates are generated. Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 25, 2014.
30. Through issuance of this order, the Commission is approving Reliability Standard PER-005-2, and the retirement of Reliability Standard PER-005-1 when PER-005-2 goes into effect. Reliability Standard PER-005-2 will ensure that personnel performing or supporting real-time operations on the Bulk Electric System are trained using a systematic approach.
31.
32. Our estimate below regarding the number of respondents is based on the NERC compliance registry as of April 30, 2014. According to the NERC compliance registry, NERC has registered 15 reliability coordinators, 107 balancing authorities, 182 transmission operators, 337 transmission owners and 848 generator operators. However, under NERC's compliance registration program, entities may be registered for multiple functions, so these numbers incorporate some double counting. The number of unique entities responding will be approximately 387 entities registered as a reliability coordinator, balancing authority, transmission operator, transmission owner, or generator operator.
33. The Commission estimates the additional annual reporting burden and cost as follows:
34. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email:
35. This order will become effective upon issuance.
(A) Reliability Standard PER-005-2 is hereby approved as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory, and in the public interest.
(B) The proposed revisions to NERC's Glossary of Terms are approved, as discussed in the body of this order, along with NERC's proposed implementation plan for Reliability Standard PER-005-2 and the proposed violation severity levels and violation risk factors.
By the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has submitted the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before July 28, 2014.
Submit your comments to (1) EPA, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0460, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Pamela Myrick, Deputy Director, Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Mail code: 7408M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-554-1404; fax number: 202-564-8251; email address:
However, from time to time, EPA or respondents discover that substances have been incorrectly described by reporting companies. Reported substances have been unintentionally misidentified as a result of simple typographical errors, the misidentification of substances, or the lack of sufficient technical or analytical information to characterize fully the exact chemical substances. EPA has developed guidelines (45 FR 50544, July 29, 1980) under which incorrectly described substances listed in the Inventory can be corrected. The correction mechanism ensures the accuracy of the Inventory without imposing an unreasonable burden on the chemical industry. Without the Inventory correction mechanism, a company that submitted incorrect information would have to file a pre-manufacture notification (PMN) under TSCA section 5 to place the correct chemical substance on the Inventory whenever the previously reported substance is found to be misidentified. This would impose a much greater burden on both EPA and the submitter than the existing correction mechanism. This information collection applies to reporting and recordkeeping activities associated with the correction of misreported chemical substances found on the TSCA Inventory.
Respondents may claim all or part of a response confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Gasoline Volatility (Renewal) (EPA ICR No. 1367.11, OMB Control No. 2060-0178) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 28, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0478, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
James W. Caldwell, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code 6406J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9303; fax number: (202) 343-2801; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has submitted the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before July 28, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0459, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Pamela Myrick, Deputy Director, Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Mail code: 7408-M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-554-1404; fax number: 202-564-8251; email address:
Respondents may claim all or part of a notice confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Emission Guidelines for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units (40 CFR part 60, Subpart DDDD) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2385.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0664) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 28, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0312, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
In addition to the changes above, this ICR revises the number of respondents using the latest Agency estimates, and corrects the number of responses as the previous ICR incorrectly included internal records as a response. This attributes to a decrease in the number of respondents and number of responses.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has submitted the following information collection request (ICR), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments muse be submitted on or before July 28, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0458, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, or information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Pamela Myrick, Deputy Director, Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Mail code: 7408M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-554-1404; fax number: 202-564-8251; email address:
Generally, EPA uses chemical-specific information under TSCA section 8(a) to evaluate the potential for adverse human health and environmental effects caused by the manufacture (including import), processing, use or disposal of identified chemical substances and mixtures. Additionally, EPA may use TSCA section 8(a) information to assess the need or set priorities for testing and/or further regulatory action. To the extent that the submitter considers the reported information not to be confidential, environmental groups, environmental justice advocates, state and local government entities and other members of the public will also have access to this information for their use.
Respondents may claim all or part of a response confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has submitted the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before July 28, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0494, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Scott Drewes, Field and External Affairs Division, 7506P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 347-0107; email address:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Group I Polymers and Resins (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart U) (Renewal) (EPA ICR No. 2410.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0665), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 28, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0356, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number:(202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; extension of the request for scientific views.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is re-opening the comment period for the external peer review draft aquatic life ambient water quality criterion for selenium announced in a previous notice entitled “External Peer Review Draft Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criterion for Selenium—Freshwater 2014.” In response to stakeholder requests, the EPA is extending the period of time in which the Agency will accept scientific views for an additional 30 days.
Scientific views must be received on or before July 28, 2014. Scientific views postmarked after this date may not receive the same consideration.
The comment period was originally scheduled to end on June 13, 2014.
Submit your scientific views, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0019, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Kathryn Gallagher at U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division (4304T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-1398; or email:
On May 14, 2014, the EPA announced the availability of the external peer review draft national recommended aquatic life water quality criterion for selenium in a previous notice entitled “External Peer Review Draft Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criterion for Selenium—Freshwater 2014” in the
EPA is re-opening the public comment period of the External Peer Review Draft Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criterion for Selenium—Freshwater 2014 (EPA-822-P-14-001). The original comment deadline was June 13, 2014. This action re-opens the comment period for 30 days. Written scientific views must now be received by July 28, 2014. This external peer review draft criterion document does not represent and should not be construed to represent any final EPA policy, viewpoint, or determination.
Following closure of the public comment period, an EPA contractor will organize and conduct an independent expert external letter peer review of the draft criterion document. Public comments will be made available to the peer reviewers for consideration during their review. Following peer review, EPA will consider the peer reviewer and public comments, and revise the document as necessary. EPA will then publish a
The Commission gives notice that the following applicants have filed an application for an Ocean Transportation Intermediary (OTI) license as a Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier (NVO) and/or Ocean Freight Forwarder (OFF) pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101). Notice is also given of the filing of applications to amend an existing OTI license or the Qualifying Individual (QI) for a licensee.
Interested persons may contact the Office of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, by telephone at (202) 523-5843 or by email at
By the Commission.
The meeting announced below concerns the Pilot Program of Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Tests to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates, Special Interest Projects (SIP) 14-012; the Understanding the Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening among South Central Asian Immigrants in the United States, SIP-14-013; and the Development and Evaluation of Active Surveillance Decision aid for Men with Low-grade, Local-stage Prostate Cancer, SIP-14-014, Panel D, initial review.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The meeting announced below concerns Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research Centers: Special Interest Project Competitive Supplements DP-14-011, initial review.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The meeting announced below concerns the Agricultural, Forestry and Fishing Safety and Health Research (U01) PAR-14-175, initial review.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by August 25, 2014.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Under section 228 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-85), as amended by section 704(g)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 374(g)(7)), the owner or operator of an establishment may submit an audit report that assesses conformance with appropriate quality system standards set by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and identified by the Secretary in public notice.
The “Guidance for Industry, Third Parties and FDA Staff: Medical Device ISO 13485:2003 Voluntary Audit Report Submission Program” describes how FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research are implementing this provision of the law and providing public notice as required. The proposed collections of information are necessary to satisfy the previously mentioned statutory requirements for implementing this voluntary submission program. The collected information is used for setting risk-based inspectional priorities.
The “Guidance for Industry, Third Parties, and FDA Staff: Medical Device ISO 13485:2003 Voluntary Audit Report Submission Program” describes how FDA's Center for Devices and
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on FDA's experience with the founding regulatory members of the Global Harmonization Task Force (GHTF), FDA expects that the vast majority of manufacturers who will participate in the Voluntary Audit Report Submission Program will be manufacturers who are certified by Health Canada under ISO 13485:2003.
In addition, FDA only expects firms that do not have major deficiencies or observations in their ISO 13485:2003 audits to be willing to submit their audit reports to FDA under the Voluntary Audit Report Submission Program. FDA analyzed its inspection data from Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (October 1, 2012 to October 1, 2013) and determined that the total number of inspections finalized in FY 2013 for medical devices was 2,404. The breakdown for the 2,404 compliance decisions is as follows:
Because FDA only expects firms who do not have major deficiencies or observations to be willing to submit their audit reports to FDA under the Voluntary Audit Report Submission Program, FDA only expects to receive audit reports that would have been classified by FDA as No Action Indicated (NAI).
Assuming that the percentage breakdown of compliance decisions for all inspections conducted in FY 2013 can be extrapolated and applied to audits of manufacturers certified under ISO 13485:2003 by Health Canada, FDA can estimate the number of Canadian establishments that would have had an inspection classified as an NAI. Because 45 percent of all compliance decisions resulted in an NAI decision, FDA estimates that 1,546 of the facilities certified under ISO 13485:2003 by Health Canada (45 percent of the total 3,436 facilities) would have had an inspection classified as an NAI.
Because FDA expects that the vast majority of manufacturers who will participate in the Voluntary Audit Report Submission Program will be manufacturers certified by Health Canada under ISO 13485:2003, FDA expects the number of reports to be submitted from manufacturers certified by regulatory systems established by other founding GHTF members to be minimal. For purposes of calculating the reporting burden, FDA estimates that approximately 10 percent of total audit reports submitted under this program will be from these other manufacturers. Because 90 percent of the audit reports are expected to be submitted by manufacturers certified by Health Canada (approximately 1,500 audit reports), the total number of audit reports FDA expects to receive in a year is approximately 1,700 audit reports.
FDA estimates from past experience with the Electronic Submission Gateway system, WebTrader, that the first year to set up the account and to receive the verification certificate takes approximately 40 hours. This burden may be minimized if the respondent already has an established account in WebTrader for other electronic submissions to FDA, but FDA is assuming that all respondents to this new pilot program will be setting up a WebTrader account for the first time in the first year. For subsequent years, the burden hours are estimated at 1 hour to renew the yearly required verification certification.
FDA further estimates that the gathering, scanning, and submission of the audit reports, certificates, and related correspondence would take approximately 2 hours utilizing the eSubmitter system.
Therefore, the first year will include 40 hours for the WebTrader system plus 2 hours for the eSubmitter submission process, resulting in 42 hours per response for the first year. For subsequent years, it is estimated that only 1 hour will be necessary for the WebTrader system plus the 2 hours for the eSubmitter submission process, resulting in 3 hours per response each year thereafter.
There are operating and maintenance costs associated with this information collection. The costs are $30 per year to establish and maintain the Electronic Submission Gateway verification certificate.
This guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by August 25, 2014.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
In the
In table 1 of this document, FDA has estimated the reporting burden associated with each section of this requirement. FDA believes that the majority of additional BE studies will be reported in ANDAs (submitted under § 314.94), rather than supplements (reported in § 314.97) because it is unlikely than an ANDA holder will conduct BE studies with a drug after the drug has been approved. With respect to the reporting of additional BE studies in amendments (submitted under § 314.96), this should also account for a small number of reports because most BE studies will be conducted on a drug prior to the submission of the ANDA and will be reported in the ANDA itself.
FDA estimates applicants will require approximately 120 hours of staff time to prepare and submit each additional complete BE study report and approximately 60 hours of staff time for each additional BE summary report. The Agency believes that a complete report will be required approximately 20 percent of the time, while a summary will suffice approximately 80 percent of the time. Based on a weighted-average calculation using the information presented previously in this document, the submission of each additional BE study is expected to take 72 hours of staff time ([120 × 0.2] + [60 × 0.8]).
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Importer's Entry Notice” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
On June 9, 2014, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Importer's Entry Notice” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0046. The approval expires on June 30, 2017. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by July 28, 2014.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (the Bioterrorism Act) (Pub. L. 107-188) added section 414 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 350c), which requires that persons who manufacture, process, pack, hold, receive, distribute, transport, or import food in the United States establish and maintain records identifying the immediate previous sources and immediate subsequent recipients of food. Sections 1.326 through 1.363 of our regulations (21 CFR 1.326 through 1.363) set forth the requirements for recordkeeping and records access. The requirement to establish and maintain records improves our ability to respond to, and further contain, threats of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals from accidental or deliberate contamination of food.
Information maintained under these regulations will help us to identify and locate quickly contaminated or potentially contaminated food and to inform the appropriate individuals and food facilities of specific terrorist threats. Our regulations require that records for non-transporters include the name and full contact information of sources, recipients, and transporters, an adequate description of the food including the quantity and packaging, and the receipt and shipping dates (§§ 1.337 and 1.345). Required records for transporters include the names of consignor and consignee, points of origin and destination, date of shipment, number of packages, description of freight, route of movement and name of each carrier participating in the transportation, and transfer points through which shipment moved (§ 1.352). Existing records may be used if they contain all of the
Section 101 of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (Pub. L. 111-353) amended section 414(a) of the FD&C Act and expanded our access to records. Specifically, FSMA expanded our access to records beyond records relating to the specific suspect article of food to records relating to any other article of food that we reasonably believe is likely to be affected in a similar manner. In addition, we can access records if we believe that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to an article of food, and any other article of food that we reasonably believe is likely to be affected in a similar manner, will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals. To gain access to these records, our officer or employee must present appropriate credentials and a written notice, at reasonable times and within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner.
On February 23, 2012, we issued an interim final rule in the
In the
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
This estimate is based on our estimate of the number of facilities affected by the final rule entitled “Establishment and Maintenance of Records Under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002,” published in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Gluten-Free Labeling of Foods—Small Entity Compliance Guide.” The small entity compliance guide (SECG) is being issued for a final rule published in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on FDA guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the SECG to the Food Labeling and Standards Staff, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Submit electronic comments on the SECG to
Felicia B. Billingslea, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2371.
In the
We examined the economic implications of the final rule as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and determined that the final rule could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In compliance with section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121), we are making available this SECG to explain the actions that a small entity must take to comply with the rule.
We are issuing this SECG consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115(c)(2)). This SECG represents our current thinking on establishing a regulatory definition of the term “gluten-free” for voluntary use in the labeling of foods. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding the guidance to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
For those unable to attend in person, the meeting will also be Webcast. The Webcast will be available at the following link:
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets. Seating for this meeting may be limited, so the public is encouraged to watch the free webcast if you are unable to attend. The link for the webcast will be available on July 31, 2014, at 8 a.m.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Bryan Emery at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams,
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Cindy Hong at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Request for applications.
The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the Navigation Safety Advisory Council. The Navigation Safety Advisory Council provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, on matters relating to maritime collisions, rammings, and groundings; Inland Rules of the Road; International Rules of the Road; navigation regulations and equipment, routing measures, marine information, diving safety, and aids to navigation systems.
Applicants must submit a cover letter and resume on or before July 30, 2014.
Applicants should submit a cover letter and resume via one of the following methods:
• By mail: Commandant (CG-NAV)/NAVSAC Attn: Mr. Mike Sollosi, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Commandant (CG-NAV), U.S. Coast Guard 2703 Martin Luther King Avenue SE., STOP 7418, Washington, DC 20593-7418;
• By fax to 202-372-1991; or
• By email to
Mr. Mike Sollosi, the NAVSAC Alternate Designated Federal Officer, telephone 202-372-1545, fax 202-372-1991, or email
The Navigation Safety Advisory Council is a Federal advisory committee authorized by 33 U.S.C. 2073 and chartered under the
The Navigation Safety Advisory Council is expected to meet at least twice each year, or more often with the approval of the Designated Federal Officer. All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary from the Federal Government, although travel reimbursement and per diem may be provided for called meetings. The Navigation Safety Advisory Council is composed of not more than 21 members who all will have expertise in Inland and International vessel navigation Rules of the Road, aids to maritime navigation, maritime law, vessel safety, port safety, or commercial diving safety. Each member will be appointed to represent the viewpoints and interests of one of the following groups or organizations, and at least one member will be appointed to represent each membership category:
a. Commercial vessel owners or operators;
b. Professional mariners;
c. Recreational boaters;
d. The recreational boating industry;
e. State agencies responsible for vessel or port safety; and
f. The Maritime Law Association.
Members serve as representatives and are not Special Government Employees as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202(a).
The Coast Guard will consider applications for seven positions that expire or become vacant on November 4, 2014, in the following categories:
a. Professional mariners;
b. Recreational boaters;
c. Recreational Boating Industry;
d. State agencies responsible for vessel or port safety; and
e. Maritime Law Association.
To be eligible, you should have experience in one of the categories listed above. Members serve terms of office of up to three (3) years. Members may be considered to serve up to two (2) consecutive terms. In the event the Navigation Safety Advisory Council terminates, all appointments to the Council terminate.
Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on Federal advisory committees. Registered lobbyists are lobbyists required to comply with provisions contained in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-65 as amended).
The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in selecting Council members on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or other non-merit factor. The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.
If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Council, submit your complete application package to Mr. Mike Sollosi, the Navigation Safety Advisory Council Assistant Designated Federal Officer via one of the transmittal methods provided above by the deadline in the
To visit our online docket, go to
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Coast Guard announces that it is changing from a three-year to a four-year cycle for conducting National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) area exercises. The changes are intended to promote the Coast Guard's maritime safety and stewardship missions.
Comments must be submitted to the online docket via
Submit any comments using one of these methods:
For information about this document call or email LCDR Jerry Butwid, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-2263; email
Coast Guard units manage risk by leveraging opportunities to exercise with public, government, and industry stakeholders. Under 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), the Coast Guard has been required since 1990 to periodically conduct oil spill response exercises to ensure that personnel and equipment are ready to respond to oil spills. The schedule for these exercises is largely determined by the Coast Guard but maintained by the National Schedule Coordination Committee (NSCC), which comprises representatives from the Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). Exercises are held in partnership with NSCC agencies and with private industry. Although the statute does not specify how often these exercises must be held, it has been Coast Guard practice since 1994 to hold area exercises once in every three years according to the PREP Guidelines in each of the Coast Guard's 42 Captain of the Port (COTP) zones and in each of the Environmental Protection Agency's 10 Regions. We have decided to extend the area exercise cycle to four years. This will ensure that exercises focus on quality, not quantity, by providing exercise coordinators sufficient time to process and implement area exercise lessons learned and best practices into the preparedness cycle.
On March 25, 2014, BSEE published a notice
For the next four fiscal years, beginning October 1, 2014, the start of Fiscal Year 2015, the PREP area exercise schedule will be:
2015: Industry-led exercises in Sectors Delaware Bay, San Juan, Mobile Guam, and Juneau; government-led exercises in Sectors Hampton Roads, New Orleans, and Buffalo.
2016: Industry-led exercises in Marine Safety Units Savannah, Duluth, and Valdez, and in Sectors Key West, Corpus Christi, Los Angeles/Long Beach (South), San Francisco, and Columbia River; government-led exercises in Sectors New York and Jacksonville.
2017: Industry-led exercises in MSU Port Arthur and in Sectors Northern New England, Charleston, Lake Michigan, and Puget Sound; government-led exercises in MSU Morgan City and in Sectors Boston, Baltimore, and Long Island Sound.
2018: Industry-led exercises in Sectors Southeastern New England, St. Petersburg, Houston-Galveston, Sault St. Marie, San Diego, Los Angeles/Long Beach (North), and Anchorage; government-led exercises in Sectors North Carolina, Miami, Detroit, and Honolulu.
This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), notice is hereby given that the Federal
The Final Phase III ERP/PEIS considers programmatic alternatives comprised of early restoration project types that would restore natural resources, ecological services, and recreational use services injured or lost as a result of the
Nanciann Regalado,
On or about April 20, 2010, the mobile offshore drilling unit
The State and Federal natural resource trustees (Trustees) are conducting the natural resource damage assessment for the
The
• U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), as represented by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management;
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce;
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA);
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA);
• State of Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, Oil Spill Coordinator's Office, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and Department of Natural Resources;
• State of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality;
• State of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and Geological Survey of Alabama;
• State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and
• Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas General Land Office, and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which are not joining in the issuance of this Final Phase III ERP/PEIS at this time;
• The Department of Defense (DOD) is also a trustee of natural resources associated with DOD-managed land on the Gulf Coast, which is included in the ongoing NRDA; however DOD is not a signatory of the Framework Agreement nor a participant in this Phase III Early Restoration Plan.
On April 20, 2011, BP agreed to provide up to $1 billion toward early restoration projects in the Gulf of Mexico to address injuries to natural resources caused by the
The Trustees actively solicited public input on restoration project ideas through a variety of mechanisms, including convening public meetings, distributing electronic communications, and use of the Trustee-wide public Web site and database to share information and receive public project submissions. The key objective in pursuing early restoration is to secure tangible recovery of natural resources and natural resource services for the public's benefit while the longer term process of fully assessing injury and damages is under way. The Trustees released, after public review of a draft, a Phase I Early Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment (Phase I ERP/EA) on April 20, 2012 (77 FR 23741). Subsequently, the Trustees released, after public review of a draft, a Phase II Early Restoration Plan/Environmental Review (Phase II ERP/ER) in December 2012 (78 FR 8184).
The Trustees considered hundreds of projects leading to the identification of a potential 28 future early restoration projects announced in the May 6, 2013,
Notice of availability of the Draft Programmatic and Phase III Early Restoration Plan and Draft Early Restoration Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft Phase III ERP/PEIS) was published in the
The Final Phase III ERP/PEIS is being released in accordance with the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 15 CFR part 990, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Final Phase III ERP/PEIS proposes early restoration programmatic alternatives and evaluates the potential environmental effects and cumulative effects of those alternatives. The Final Phase III ERP/PEIS groups 12 project types into two categories: (1) Contribute to Restoring Habitats and Living Coastal and Marine Resources, and (2) Contribute to Providing and Enhancing Recreational Opportunities. These categories provide the basis for defining the list of four alternatives considered in the document:
• Alternative 1: No Action (No Additional Early Restoration);
• Alternative 2: Contribute to Restoring Habitats and Living Coastal and Marine Resources;
• Alternative 3: Contribute to Providing and Enhancing Recreational Opportunities; and
• Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative): Contribute to Restoring Habitats, Living Coastal and Marine Resources, and Recreational Opportunities.
The Participating Trustees propose to select 44 projects as described in the Final Phase III ERP/PEIS, totaling an estimated cost of approximately $627 million.
The proposed restoration projects are intended to continue the process of using early restoration funding to restore natural resources, ecological services, and recreational use services injured or lost as a result of the
The projects proposed in Phase III are not intended to, and do not, fully address all injuries caused by the spill or provide the extent of restoration needed to make the public and the environment whole. The Participating Trustees anticipate that additional early restoration projects will be proposed in the future as the early restoration process continues.
In accordance with NEPA, a Federal agency must prepare a concise public Record of Decision (ROD) at the time the agency makes a decision in cases involving an EIS (40 CFR 1505.2). The ROD for the Final Phase III ERP/PEIS would provide and explain the Trustees' decisions regarding the selection of a programmatic early restoration alternative and specific early restoration projects. The Trustees will issue the ROD no earlier than 30 days after the Environmental Protection Agency publishes a notice in the
An Administrative Record has been established and can be viewed electronically at
The authorities of this action are the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior; National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice; extension of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively referred to as the “Services” or “we”), announce the extension of the public comment period on our May 12, 2014, draft policy regarding implementation of section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final policy.
We will accept comments from all interested parties until October 9, 2014. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
Douglas Krofta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Conservation and Classification, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 420, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703/358-2171; facsimile 703/358-1735; or Marta Nammack, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; telephone 301/713-8469; facsimile 301/713-0376. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800/877-8339.
We will accept written comments and information during this extended comment period on our draft policy regarding implementation of section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531
If you submitted comments or information during the public comment period that began May 12, 2014, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final policy.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in
If you submit a comment via
On May 12, 2014, we published three related documents concerning designation and implementation of critical habitat under the Act: Two proposed regulation amendments and one draft policy. This notice extends the comment period for the draft policy, and a separate document published elsewhere in today's issue of the
Specifically, the draft policy on exclusions from critical habitat under the Act provides the Services' position on how we consider partnerships and conservation plans, conservation plans permitted under section 10 of the Act, tribal lands, national security and homeland security impacts and military lands, Federal lands, and economic impacts in the exclusion process. The draft policy is meant to complement the amendments to our regulations regarding impact analyses of critical habitat designations and is intended to clarify expectations regarding critical habitat and provide for a credible, predictable, and simplified critical-habitat-exclusion process.
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Endangered Species Program, Headquarters Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of submission to OMB.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for renewal of the approval for the collection of information in the Application for Job Placement and Training Services. The information collection is currently authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0062, which expires June 30, 2014.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 28, 2014.
You may submit comments on the information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at the Office of Management and Budget, by facsimile to (202) 395-5806 or by email to:
Jack Stevens, telephone: (202) 208-6764. You may review the information collection request online at
The Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development (IEED) is seeking renewal of the approval for the information collection conducted under 25 CFR part 26 to administer the job placement and training program, which provides vocational/technical training, related counseling, guidance, job placement services, and limited financial assistance to Indian individuals who are not less than 18 years old and who reside within service areas approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Information is collected through the form, BIA-8205,
The IEED requests your comments on this information collection concerning: (a) The necessity of this information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of 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.
Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.
It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the
Notice is hereby given, in accordance with Public Laws 92-463 and 94-579, that the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) Subcommittee of the California Desert District Advisory Council (DAC) to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of the Interior, will meet on Tuesday, July 1, 2014 from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. at the Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District Office, 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley CA, 92553. Final agenda will be posted on the subcommittee Web page at
The DRECP, a major component of California's renewable energy planning efforts, is intended to help provide effective protection and conservation of desert ecosystems while allowing for the appropriate development of renewable energy projects.
The DAC DRECP subcommittee was formed in order to develop comments on the overall plan ahead of actual availability of the DRECP Draft EIR/EIS.
Subcommittees are considered an internal working group of the council and comprised of council members only.
All DAC subcommittee meetings are open to the public. Time for public comment may be made available by the subcommittee chairman during the presentation of various agenda items.
Written comments may be filed in advance of the meeting for the California Desert District Advisory Council, c/o Bureau of Land Management, External Affairs, 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, CA 92553. Written comments also are accepted at the time of the meeting.
Stephen Razo, BLM California Desert District External Affairs, (951) 697-5217.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
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) Central California Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
Business meetings will be held Thursday and Friday, July 17-18, 2014, at the BLM Mother Lode Field Office, 5152 Hillsdale Circle, El Dorado Hills, CA. Members of the public are welcome to attend.
On July 17, the RAC will meet from noon to 6 p.m. On July 18, the RAC will meet from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. Time for public comment is reserved from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. on July 18.
BLM Central California District Manager Este Stifel, (916) 978-4626; or BLM Public Affairs Officer David Christy, (916) 941-3146.
The 12-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the Central California District, which includes the Bishop, Bakersfield, Hollister, Ukiah and Mother
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Sunlight Supply, Inc., and IP Holdings, LLC on June 20, 2014. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain light reflectors and components, packaging, and related advertising thereof. The complaint name as respondents Sinowell (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. of China; Sinohydro Ltd. of China; Groco Enterprises, LLC of Bellevue, WA; Good Nature Garden Supply of Sacramento, CA; Aqua Serene, Inc. of Eugene, OR; Aurora Innovations, Inc. of Eugene, OR; Big Daddy Garden Supply, Inc. of Ukiah, CA; Bizright, LLC of City of Industry, CA; Coinstar Procurement, LLC of Bellevue, WA; The Hydro Source II, Inc. of Santa Fe Springs, CA; Insun, LLC of Bellevue, WA; Lumz' N. Blooms, Ltd. Corp. of Apopka, FL; Parlux LP of Snohomish, WA; Silversun, Inc. of Gig Harbor, WA; and Zimbali Group, Inc. of Bellevue, WA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative, a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No.3019”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to issue a general exclusion order (“GEO”) in this investigation. The investigation is terminated.
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-861 on November 16, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Speculative Product Design, LLC of Mountain View, California (“Speck”). 77
The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-867 on January 31, 2013, based on a complaint filed by Speck. 78
All of the respondents that participated in the investigation were terminated from the investigation. Specifically, respondents JWIN Electronics Corp., d/b/a iLuv of Port Washington, New York and Fellowes, Inc. of Itasca, Illinois were terminated from the investigation based upon settlement agreements. Respondents Project Horizon, Inc., d/b/a/ InMotion Entertainment of Jacksonville, Florida and En Jinn Industrial Co., Ltd. of New Taipei City, Taiwan were terminated from the investigation based upon consent order stipulations. Respondents Superior Communications, Inc. of Irwindale, California and Shengda Huanqiu Shijie of Shenzhen, China were terminated from the investigation based upon withdrawal of allegations pertaining to them from the complaint. Respondent Jie Sheng Technology of Tainan City, Taiwan was terminated from the investigation based upon amendment to the complaint and notice of investigation. Respondent Body Glove International, LLC of Redondo Beach, California was terminated from the investigation based upon a finding that it had committed no acts in violation of section 337.
The following respondents were found in default: Anbess Electronics Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; ROCON Digital Technology Corp. of Shenzhen, China; Trait Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; Hongkong Wexun Ltd. of Guangdong, China; SW-Box.com (
On August 19, 2013, Speck filed a motion for summary determination that it has satisfied the domestic industry requirement under sections 337(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C) (not including licensing). On August 19, 2013, the IA filed a response in support of Speck's motion that it has satisfied the domestic industry requirement under section 337(a)(3)(C). On September 10, 2013, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No 15) granting Speck's motion in part. Specifically, the ALJ found that Speck established a domestic industry for the '561 patent under section 337(a)(3)(C). On October 23, 2013, the Commission determined not to review the ID.
On September 30, 2013, the ALJ granted a motion by Speck to terminate the investigation as to claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, and 12-16 of the '561 patent. On November 11, 2013, the Commission determined not to review. Thus, claims 4, 5, 9, and 11 remain pending in the investigation.
On November 15, 2013, Speck filed a motion for summary determination of violation with respect to the defaulting respondents. On November 26, 2013, the IA filed a response in support of Speck's motion. On February 21, 2014, the presiding ALJ issued his final initial determination on violation and recommendation on remedy (“ID/RD”), Order No. 28, granting the motion. The ALJ recommended issuance of a general exclusion order and the imposition of a bond of 100 percent of entered value during the period of Presidential review. On April 8, 2014, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's final determination on violation. 79
The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief is a GEO under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2), prohibiting the unlicensed entry of cases for portable electronic devices covered by one or more claims 4, 5, 9, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,204,561 (“the '561 patent”).
The Commission has further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(d)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the GEO. The Commission has determined that the bond for temporary importation during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)) shall be in the amount of 100
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Complaint Involving Employment Discrimination by a Federal Contractor or Subcontractor,” 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 et seq.). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before July 28, 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-OFCCP, 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 approval under the PRA for revisions to the Complaint Involving Employment Discrimination by a Federal Contractor or Subcontractor, Form CC-4, that an individual prepares to allege illegal discrimination by a Federal contractor or subcontractor under any OFCCP administered program. This information collection has been classified as a revision, because the OFCCP has made several changes to Form CC-4 to clarify information sought and otherwise shorten and simplify the form. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 section 503, 29 U.S.C. 793; Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, 38 U.S.C. 4212; and E.O. 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, As Amended section 206 authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
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.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a forthcoming meeting of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel.
Thursday, July 24, 2014, 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room 9H40, Washington, DC 20546.
Ms. Marian Norris, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Administrative Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-4452 or
The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) will hold its Third Quarterly Meeting for 2014. This discussion is pursuant to carrying out its statutory duties for which the Panel reviews, identifies, evaluates, and advises on those program activities, systems, procedures, and management activities that can contribute to program risk. Priority is given to those programs that involve the safety of human flight. The agenda will include:
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. Seating will be on a first-come basis. This meeting is also available telephonically. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number (800) 857-7040; pass code 2820756. Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee; and home address to Marian Norris via email at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Heliophysics Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Thursday, July 17, 2014, 2:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Friday, July 18, 2014, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Local Time.
Ms. Ann Delo, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0750, fax (202) 358-2779, or
This meeting will be open to the public telephonically and by WebEx. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number 800-857-4254, Passcode 6732, to participate in this meeting by telephone. This toll free number and passcode will be used on July 17 and July 18, 2014. The WebEx link is
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License renewal; notice of issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued Renewed Facility Operating License No. R-108, held by the Dow Chemical Company. The renewed license would authorize the Dow Chemical Company to operate the Dow TRIGA (Training, Research, Isotope Production, General Atomics) Research Reactor (DTRR), for 20 years from its date of issuance.
The issuance date of Renewed Facility Operating License No. R-108 is June 18, 2014.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0026 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
License renewal application and supplemental documents:
Licensee's annual reports for years ending:
Geoffrey Wertz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0893; email:
The NRC has issued Renewed Facility Operating License No. R-108, held by the Dow Chemical Company, which authorizes continued operation of the Dow TRIGA (Training, Research, Isotope Production, General Atomics) Research Reactor (DTRR), located in Midland, Michigan. The DTRR is a pool-type, natural convection, light-water cooled, and shielded reactor. The DTRR is licensed to operate at a steady-state thermal power level of 300 kilowatts. The Renewed Facility Operating License No. R-108 will expire 20 years from its date of issuance.
The renewed facility operating license complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's regulations in Title 10, Chapter 1, of the
The NRC staff prepared a safety evaluation report for the renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-108 and concluded, based on that evaluation, the licensee can continue to operate the facility without endangering the health and safety of the public. The NRC staff also prepared an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the renewal of the facility operating license, noticed in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Revised Director's decision under 10 CFR 2.206; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a revised director's decision with regard to a petition dated July 27, 2011, filed by Mr. Geoff Fettus, Senior Project Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (the petitioner), requesting that the NRC take action with regard to all operating reactor licensees. The petitioner's request, the director's decision, the letter to the petitioner, and the letter to the licensees (which includes a listing of all operating reactor licensees affected by this revised director's decision) are discussed in the
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0114 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Notice is hereby given that the Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has issued a revision to a director's decision (ADAMS Accession No. ML14098A166) dated May 6, 2014, on a petition filed by the petitioner on July 27, 2011, (ADAMS Accession No. ML11216A085). A listing of all operating reactor licensees affected by this director's decision is available in the Letter to Licensees, available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13282A372.
The petitioner requested that the NRC order licensees to comply with 12 specific recommendations in the NRC Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Report, “Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century,” issued July 12, 2011, (ADAMS Accession No. ML111861807). The petitioner cited the NTTF Report as the rationale for and basis of the petition.
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed director's decision to the petitioner and the licensees for comment on March 11, 2014. The petitioner and the licensees were asked to provide comments within 15 days on any part of the proposed director's decision that was considered to be erroneous or any issues in the petition that were not addressed. The staff did not receive any comments on the proposed director's decision.
The NRC issued a director's decision (ADAMS Accession No. ML14098A166) on May 6, 2014. Subsequently, the NRC found two revisions necessary. The NRC's response to the petitioner's Request 7 is corrected to reference the
As stated in the initial director's decision, the Deputy Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has determined that the petitioner's request to order licensees to comply with 12 specific recommendations in the NRC NTTF Report, “Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century,” issued July 12, 2011, was resolved through the issuance of orders, written statements in accordance with Title 10 of the
The NRC will file a copy of the revised director's decision with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206. As provided by this regulation, the director's decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision unless the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the director's decision in that time.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing requesting an amendment to Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 13 on the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On June 19, 2014, the Postal Service filed notice that it has agreed to an Amendment to the existing Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 13 negotiated service agreement approved in this docket.
The Postal Service also filed the unredacted Amendment and supporting financial information under seal. The Postal Service seeks to incorporate by reference the Application for Non-Public Treatment originally filed in this docket for the protection of information that it has filed under seal.
The Amendment changes the rates for Priority Mail pieces sent under the negotiated service agreement. It also extends the term of the negotiated service agreement from five years to seven years.
The Postal Service intends for the Amendment to become effective one business day after the date that the Commission completes its review of the Notice. Notice at 1. The Postal Service asserts that the Amendment will not impair the ability of the contract to comply with 39 U.S.C. 3633. Notice, Attachment B at 1.
The Commission invites comments on whether the changes presented in the Postal Service's Notice are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than June 30, 2014. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.
1. The Commission reopens Docket No. CP2013-45 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
3. Comments are due no later than June 30, 2014.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing requesting an amendment to Priority Mail Contract 33. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On June 19, 2014, the Postal Service filed notice that it has agreed to an Amendment to the existing Priority Mail Contract 33 negotiated service agreement approved in this docket.
The Postal Service also filed the unredacted Amendment under seal. The Postal Service seeks to incorporate by reference the Application for Non-Public Treatment originally filed in this docket for the protection of information that it has filed under seal.
The Amendment modifies Section I.C. of the contract to assign unique payment methods for the customer. Section I.D. is also amended to change the contract prices.
The Postal Service intends for the Amendment to become effective one business day after the date that the Commission completes its review of the Notice.
The Commission invites comments on whether the changes presented in the Postal Service's Notice are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than June 30, 2014. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Pamela A. Thompson to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.
1. The Commission reopens Docket No. CP2011-49 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Pamela A. Thompson to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
3. Comments are due no later than June 30, 2014.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
The RRB invites comments on the proposed collections of information to determine (1) the practical utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to the RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if the RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of the publication date.
Under Section 10 of the Railroad Retirement Act and Section 2(d) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, the RRB may recover overpayments of annuities, pensions, death benefits, unemployment benefits, and sickness benefits that were made erroneously. An overpayment may be waived if the beneficiary was not at fault in causing the overpayment and recovery would cause financial hardship. The regulations for the recovery and waiver of erroneous payments are contained in 20 CFR parts 255 and CFR part 340. The RRB utilizes Form DR-423, Financial Disclosure Statement, to obtain information about the overpaid beneficiary's income, debts, and expenses if that person indicates that (s)he cannot make restitution for the overpayment. The information is used to determine if the overpayment should be waived as wholly or partially uncollectible. If waiver is denied, the information is used to determine the size and frequency of installment payments. The beneficiary is made aware of the overpayment by letter and is offered a variety of methods for recovery. One response is requested of each respondent. Completion is voluntary. However, failure to provide the requested information may result in a denial of the waiver request.
Section 2(d)(4) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), provides, in part, that a child is deemed dependent if the conditions set forth in Section 202(d)(3), (4) and (9) of the Social Security Act are met. Section 202(d)(4) of the Social Security Act, as amended by Public Law 104-121, requires as a condition of dependency, that a child receives one-half of his or her support from the stepparent. This dependency impacts upon the entitlement of a spouse or survivor of an employee whose entitlement is based upon having a stepchild of the employee in care, or on an individual seeking a child's annuity as a stepchild of an employee. Therefore, depending on the employee for at least one-half support is a condition affecting eligibility for increasing an employee or spouse annuity under the social security overall minimum provisions on the basis of the presence of a dependent child, the employee's natural child in limited situations, adopted children, stepchildren, grandchildren and step-grandchildren and equitably adopted children. The regulations outlining child support and dependency requirements are prescribed in 20 CFR 222.50-57.
In order to correctly determine if an applicant is entitled to a child's annuity based on actual dependency, the RRB uses Form G-139, Statement Regarding Contributions and Support of Children, to obtain financial information needed to make a comparison between the amount of support received from the railroad employee and the amount received from other sources. Completion is required to obtain a benefit. One response is required of each respondent.
Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Charles Mierzwa, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611-2092 or
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
Applicants request an order that would permit: (a) Series of certain open-end management investment companies to issue shares (“Shares”) redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Shares to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value (“NAV”); (c) certain series to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of Shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of the series to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the series in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; and (e) certain registered management investment companies and
Cohen & Steers ETF Trust (the “Trust”), Cohen & Steers Capital Management, Inc. (“Cohen & Steers”), and Cohen & Steers Securities, LLC (the “Distributor”).
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on July 14, 2014, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Cohen & Steers Capital Management, Inc., 280 Park Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10017.
Laura J. Riegel, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6873, or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Trust is a Maryland statutory trust and is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series. Each series will operate as an exchange-traded fund (“ETF”). The initial series of the Trust (“Initial Fund”) will be a Self-Indexing Fund (as defined below).
2. Cohen & Steers will be the investment adviser to the Initial Fund. Cohen & Steers is, and any other Adviser (as defined below) will be, registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”). The Adviser may enter into sub-advisory agreements with one or more investment advisers to act as sub-advisers to particular Funds (as defined below) (each sub-adviser, a “Sub-Adviser”). Any Sub-Adviser will either be registered under the Advisers Act or will not be required to register thereunder.
3. The Trust has entered into a distribution agreement with the Distributor. The Distributor is a broker-dealer (“Broker”) registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and will act as distributor and principal underwriter of one or more of the Funds. Applicants request that the order apply to any Broker that will act as principal underwriter and distributor to one or more Funds (“Future Distributor”), provided that any such Future Distributor complies with the terms and conditions of the application. The Distributor is not, and no Future Distributor will be, affiliated with any Exchange (as defined below).
4. Applicants request that the order apply to the Initial Fund and any additional series of the Trust, and any other open-end management investment company or series thereof, that may be created in the future (“Future Funds” and together with the Initial Fund, “Funds”), each of which will operate as an ETF and will track a specified index comprised of domestic or foreign equity and/or fixed income securities (each, an “Underlying Index”). Any Future Fund will (a) be advised by Cohen & Steers or an entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with Cohen & Steers (each, an “Adviser”) and (b) comply with the terms and conditions of the application.
5. Each Fund holds or will hold certain securities (“Portfolio Securities”) selected to correspond generally to the performance of its Underlying Index. The Underlying Indexes will be comprised of equity and/or fixed income securities issued by one or more of the following categories of issuers: (i) Domestic issuers and (ii) non-domestic issuers meeting the requirements for trading in U.S. markets. Other Funds will be based on Underlying Indexes that will be comprised of foreign and domestic or solely foreign equity and/or fixed income securities (“Foreign Funds”).
6. Applicants represent that each Fund will invest at least 80% of its assets (excluding securities lending collateral) in the component securities of its respective Underlying Index (“Component Securities”) and TBA Transactions,
7. Each Trust may offer Funds that seek to track Underlying Indexes constructed using 130/30 investment strategies (“130/30 Funds”) or other long/short investment strategies (“Long/Short Funds”). Each Long/Short Fund will establish: (i) Exposures equal to approximately 100% of the long positions specified by the Long/Short Index
8. A Fund will utilize either a replication or representative sampling strategy to track its Underlying Index. A Fund using a replication strategy will invest in the Component Securities of its Underlying Index in the same approximate proportions as in such Underlying Index. A Fund using a representative sampling strategy will hold some, but not necessarily all, of the Component Securities of its Underlying Index. Applicants state that a Fund using a representative sampling strategy will not be expected to track the performance of its Underlying Index with the same degree of accuracy as would an investment vehicle that invested in every Component Security of the Underlying Index with the same weighting as the Underlying Index. Applicants expect that each Fund will have an annual tracking error relative to the performance of its Underlying Index of less than 5%.
9. Each Fund will be entitled to use its Underlying Index pursuant to either a licensing agreement with the entity that compiles, creates, sponsors or maintains the Underlying Index (each, an “Index Provider”) or a sub-licensing arrangement with the Adviser, which will have a licensing agreement with such Index Provider.
10. Applicants recognize that Self-Indexing Funds could raise concerns regarding the ability of the Affiliated Index Provider to manipulate the Underlying Index to the benefit or detriment of the Self-Indexing Fund. Applicants further recognize the potential for conflicts that may arise with respect to the personal trading activity of personnel of the Affiliated Index Provider who have knowledge of changes to an Underlying Index prior to the time that information is publicly disseminated.
11. Applicants propose that each day that a Fund, the New York Stock Exchange, and the national securities exchange (as defined in section 2(a)(26) of the Act) (an “Exchange”) on which the Fund's Shares are primarily listed (“Listing Exchange”) are open for business, including any day that a Fund is required to be open under section 22(e) of the Act (a “Business Day”), each Self-Indexing Fund will post on its Web site, before commencement of trading of Shares on the Listing Exchange, the identities and quantities of the portfolio securities, assets, and other positions held by the Fund that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of its NAV at the end of the Business Day (“Portfolio Holdings”). Applicants believe that requiring Self-Indexing Funds to maintain full portfolio transparency will also provide an additional mechanism for addressing any such potential conflicts of interest.
12. In addition, applicants do not believe the potential for conflicts of interest raised by the Adviser's use of the Underlying Indexes in connection with the management of the Self Indexing Funds and the Affiliated Accounts will be substantially different from the potential conflicts presented by an adviser managing two or more registered funds. Both the Act and the Advisers Act contain various protections to address conflicts of interest where an adviser is managing two or more registered funds and these protections will also help address these conflicts with respect to the Self-Indexing Funds.
13. Each Adviser and any Sub-Adviser has adopted or will adopt, pursuant to Rule 206(4)-7 under the Advisers Act, written policies and procedures designed to prevent violations of the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder. These include policies and procedures designed to minimize potential conflicts of interest among the Self-Indexing Funds and the Affiliated Accounts, such as cross trading policies, as well as those designed to ensure the equitable allocation of portfolio transactions and brokerage commissions. In addition, Cohen & Steers has adopted policies and procedures as required under section 204A of the Advisers Act, which are reasonably designed in light of the nature of its business to prevent the misuse, in violation of the Advisers Act or the Exchange Act or the rules thereunder, of material non-public information by Cohen & Steers or an associated person (“Inside Information Policy”). Any other Adviser or Sub-Adviser will be required to adopt and maintain a similar Inside Information Policy. In accordance with the Code of Ethics
14. To the extent the Self-Indexing Funds transact with an Affiliated Person of the Adviser or Sub-Adviser, such transactions will comply with the Act, the rules thereunder and the terms and conditions of the requested order. In this regard, each Self-Indexing Fund's board of directors or trustees (“Board”) will periodically review the Self-Indexing Fund's use of an Affiliated Index Provider. Subject to the approval of the Self-Indexing Fund's Board, the Adviser, Affiliated Persons of the Adviser (“Adviser Affiliates”) and Affiliated Persons of any Sub-Adviser (“Sub-Adviser Affiliates”) may be authorized to provide custody, fund accounting and administration and transfer agency services to the Self-Indexing Funds. Any services provided by the Adviser, Adviser Affiliates, Sub-Adviser and Sub-Adviser Affiliates will be performed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the rules under the Act and any relevant guidelines from the staff of the Commission. Applications for prior orders granted to Self-Indexing Funds have received relief to operate such funds on the basis discussed above.
15. The Shares of each Fund will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified below, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by making an in-kind deposit of specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their Shares will receive an in-kind transfer of specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”).
16. Purchases and redemptions of Creation Units may be made in whole or in part on a cash basis, rather than in kind, solely under the following circumstances: (a) To the extent there is a Cash Amount; (b) if, on a given Business Day, the Fund announces before the open of trading that all purchases, all redemptions or all purchases and redemptions on that day will be made entirely in cash; (c) if, upon receiving a purchase or redemption order from an Authorized Participant, the Fund determines to require the purchase or redemption, as applicable, to be made entirely in cash;
17. Creation Units will consist of specified large aggregations of Shares (
18. Each Business Day, before the open of trading on the Listing Exchange, each Fund will cause to be published through the NSCC the names and quantities of the instruments comprising the Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments, as well as the estimated Cash Amount (if any), for that day. The list of Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will apply until a new list is announced on the following Business Day, and there will be no intra-day changes to the list except to correct errors in the published list. Each Listing Exchange will disseminate, every 15 seconds during regular Exchange trading hours, through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association, an amount for each Fund stated on a per individual Share basis representing the sum of (i) the estimated Cash Amount and (ii) the current value of the Deposit Instruments.
19. Transaction expenses, including operational processing and brokerage costs, will be incurred by a Fund when investors purchase or redeem Creation Units in-kind and such costs have the potential to dilute the interests of the Fund's existing shareholders. Each Fund will impose purchase or redemption transaction fees (“Transaction Fees”) in connection with effecting such purchases or redemptions of Creation Units. In all cases, such Transaction Fees will be limited in accordance with requirements of the Commission applicable to management investment companies offering redeemable securities. Since the Transaction Fees are intended to defray the transaction expenses as well as to prevent possible shareholder dilution resulting from the purchase or redemption of Creation Units, the Transaction Fees will be borne only by such purchasers or redeemers.
20. Shares of each Fund will be listed and traded individually on an Exchange. It is expected that one or more member firms of an Exchange will be designated to act as a market maker (each, a “Market Maker”) and maintain a market for Shares trading on the Exchange. Prices of Shares trading on an Exchange will be based on the current bid/offer market. Transactions involving the sale of Shares on an Exchange will be subject to customary brokerage commissions and charges.
21. Applicants expect that purchasers of Creation Units will include institutional investors and arbitrageurs. Market Makers, acting in their roles to provide a fair and orderly secondary market for the Shares, may from time to time find it appropriate to purchase or redeem Creation Units. Applicants expect that secondary market purchasers of Shares will include both institutional and retail investors.
22. Shares will not be individually redeemable, and owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund, or tender such Shares for redemption to the Fund, in Creation Units only. To redeem, an investor must accumulate enough Shares to constitute a Creation Unit. Redemption requests must be placed through an Authorized Participant. A redeeming investor may pay a Transaction Fee, calculated in the same manner as a Transaction Fee payable in connection with purchases of Creation Units.
23. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed or otherwise held out as a traditional open-end investment company or a “mutual fund.” Instead, each such Fund will be marketed as an “ETF.” All marketing materials that describe the features or method of obtaining, buying or selling Creation Units, or Shares traded on an Exchange, or refer to redeemability, will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable and will disclose that the owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund or tender such Shares for redemption to the Fund in Creation Units only. The Funds will provide copies of their annual and semi-annual shareholder reports to DTC Participants for distribution to beneficial owners of Shares.
1. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of the Act, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and the general provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any provisions of section 12(d)(1) if the
3. Section 5(a)(1) of the Act defines an “open-end company” as a management investment company that is offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which it is the issuer. Section 2(a)(32) of the Act defines a redeemable security as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the owner, upon its presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately a proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent. Because Shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an order that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue Shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only. Applicants state that investors may purchase Shares in Creation Units and redeem Creation Units from each Fund. Applicants further state that because Creation Units may always be purchased and redeemed at NAV, the price of Shares on the secondary market should not vary materially from NAV.
4. Section 22(d) of the Act, among other things, prohibits a dealer from selling a redeemable security that is currently being offered to the public by or through an underwriter, except at a current public offering price described in the prospectus. Rule 22c-1 under the Act generally requires that a dealer selling, redeeming or repurchasing a redeemable security do so only at a price based on its NAV. Applicants state that secondary market trading in Shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Thus, purchases and sales of Shares in the secondary market will not comply with section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from these provisions.
5. Applicants assert that the concerns sought to be addressed by section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act with respect to pricing are equally satisfied by the proposed method of pricing Shares. Applicants maintain that while there is little legislative history regarding section 22(d), its provisions, as well as those of rule 22c-1, appear to have been designed to (a) prevent dilution caused by certain riskless-trading schemes by principal underwriters and contract dealers, (b) prevent unjust discrimination or preferential treatment among buyers, and (c) ensure an orderly distribution of investment company shares by eliminating price competition from dealers offering shares at less than the published sales price and repurchasing shares at more than the published redemption price.
6. Applicants believe that none of these purposes will be thwarted by permitting Shares to trade in the secondary market at negotiated prices. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in Shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in Shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in Shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants contend that the price at which Shares trade will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities created by the option continually to purchase or redeem Shares in Creation Units, which should help prevent Shares from trading at a material discount or premium in relation to their NAV.
7. Section 22(e) of the Act generally prohibits a registered investment company from suspending the right of redemption or postponing the date of payment of redemption proceeds for more than seven days after the tender of a security for redemption. Applicants state that settlement of redemptions for Foreign Funds will be contingent not only on the settlement cycle of the United States market, but also on current delivery cycles in local markets for underlying foreign securities held by a Foreign Fund. Applicants state that the delivery cycles currently practicable for transferring Redemption Instruments to redeeming investors, coupled with local market holiday schedules, may require a delivery process of up to fourteen (14) calendar days. Accordingly, with respect to Foreign Funds only, applicants hereby request relief under section 6(c) from the requirement imposed by section 22(e) to allow Foreign Funds to pay redemption proceeds within fourteen calendar days following the tender of Creation Units for redemption.
8. Applicants believe that Congress adopted section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds. Applicants propose that allowing redemption payments for Creation Units of a Foreign Fund to be made within fourteen calendar days would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e). Applicants suggest that a redemption payment occurring within fourteen calendar days following a redemption request would adequately afford investor protection.
9. Applicants are not seeking relief from section 22(e) with respect to Foreign Funds that do not effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in-kind.
10. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a registered investment company from acquiring securities of an investment company if such securities represent more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of the acquired company, more than 5% of the total assets of the acquiring company, or, together with the securities of any other investment companies, more than 10% of the total assets of the acquiring company. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act prohibits a registered open-end investment company, its principal underwriter and any other broker-dealer from knowingly selling the investment company's shares to another investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or if the sale will cause more than 10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment companies generally.
11. Applicants request an exemption to permit registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts (“UITs”) that are not advised or sponsored by the Adviser, and not part of the same “group of investment companies,” as defined in section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act as the Funds (such management investment companies are referred to as “Investing Management Companies,” such UITs are referred to as “Investing Trusts,” and Investing Management Companies and Investing Trusts are collectively referred to as “Funds of Funds”), to acquire Shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or any Broker registered under the Exchange Act, to sell Shares to Funds of Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
12. Each Investing Management Company will be advised by an investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act (the “Fund of Funds Adviser”) and may be sub-advised by investment advisers within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(B) of the Act (each, a “Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser”). Any investment adviser to an Investing Management Company will be registered under the Advisers Act. Each Investing Trust will be sponsored by a sponsor (“Sponsor”).
13. Applicants submit that the proposed conditions to the requested relief adequately address the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B), which include concerns about undue influence by a fund of funds over underlying funds, excessive layering of fees and overly complex fund structures. Applicants believe that the requested exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
14. Applicants believe that neither a Fund of Funds nor a Fund of Funds Affiliate would be able to exert undue influence over a Fund.
15. Applicants propose other conditions to limit the potential for undue influence over the Funds, including that no Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to a Fund) will cause a Fund to purchase a security in an offering of securities during the existence of an underwriting or selling syndicate of which a principal underwriter is an Underwriting Affiliate (“Affiliated Underwriting”). An “Underwriting Affiliate” is a principal underwriter in any underwriting or selling syndicate that is an officer, director, member of an advisory board, Fund of Funds Adviser, Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser, employee or Sponsor of the Fund of Funds, or a person of which any such officer, director, member of an advisory board, Fund of Funds Adviser or Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser, employee or Sponsor is an affiliated person (except that any person whose relationship to the Fund is covered by section 10(f) of the Act is not an Underwriting Affiliate).
16. Applicants do not believe that the proposed arrangement will involve excessive layering of fees. The board of directors or trustees of any Investing Management Company, including a majority of the directors or trustees who are not “interested persons” within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“disinterested directors or trustees”), will find that the advisory fees charged under the contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services provided under the advisory contract of any Fund in which the Investing Management Company may invest. In addition, under condition B.5., a Fund of Funds Adviser, or a Fund of Funds' trustee or Sponsor, as applicable, will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Fund of Funds in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by a Fund under rule 12b-1 under the Act) received from a Fund by the Fund of Funds Adviser, trustee or Sponsor or an affiliated person of the Fund of Funds Adviser, trustee or Sponsor, other than any advisory fees paid to the Fund of Funds Adviser, trustee or Sponsor or its affiliated person by a Fund, in connection with the investment by the Fund of Funds in the Fund. Applicants state that any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of a Fund of Funds will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830.
17. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangement will not create an overly complex fund structure. Applicants note that no Fund will acquire securities of any investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent permitted by exemptive relief from the Commission permitting the Fund to purchase shares of other investment companies for short-term cash management purposes. To ensure a Fund of Funds is aware of the terms and conditions of the requested order, the Fund of Funds will enter into an agreement with the Fund (“FOF Participation Agreement”). The FOF Participation Agreement will include an acknowledgement from the Fund of Funds that it may rely on the order only to invest in the Funds and not in any other investment company.
18. Applicants also note that a Fund may choose to reject a direct purchase of Shares in Creation Units by a Fund of Funds. To the extent that a Fund of Funds purchases Shares in the secondary market, a Fund would still retain its ability to reject any initial investment by a Fund of Funds in excess of the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) by declining to enter into a FOF Participation Agreement with the Fund of Funds.
19. Sections 17(a)(1) and (2) of the Act generally prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such a person, from selling any security to or purchasing any security from the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” of another person to include (a) any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling or holding with power to vote 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person, (b) any person 5% or more of whose outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly owned, controlled or held with the power to vote by the other person, and (c) any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by or under common control with the other person. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act defines “control” as the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a company, and provides that a control relationship will be presumed where
20. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act pursuant to sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act to permit persons that are Affiliated Persons of the Funds, or Second-Tier Affiliates of the Funds, solely by virtue of one or more of the following: (a) Holding 5% or more, or in excess of 25%, of the outstanding Shares of one or more Funds; (b) an affiliation with a person with an ownership interest described in (a); or (c) holding 5% or more, or more than 25%, of the shares of one or more Affiliated Funds, to effectuate purchases and redemptions “in-kind.”
21. Applicants assert that no useful purpose would be served by prohibiting such affiliated persons from making “in-kind” purchases or “in-kind” redemptions of Shares of a Fund in Creation Units. Both the deposit procedures for “in-kind” purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for “in-kind” redemptions of Creation Units will be effected in exactly the same manner for all purchases and redemptions, regardless of size or number. There will be no discrimination between purchasers or redeemers. Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments for each Fund will be valued in the identical manner as those Portfolio Securities currently held by such Fund and the valuation of the Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be made in an identical manner regardless of the identity of the purchaser or redeemer. Applicants do not believe that “in-kind” purchases and redemptions will result in abusive self-dealing or overreaching, but rather assert that such procedures will be implemented consistently with each Fund's objectives and with the general purposes of the Act. Applicants believe that “in-kind” purchases and redemptions will be made on terms reasonable to Applicants and any affiliated persons because they will be valued pursuant to verifiable objective standards. The method of valuing Portfolio Securities held by a Fund is identical to that used for calculating “in-kind” purchase or redemption values and therefore creates no opportunity for affiliated persons or Second-Tier Affiliates of applicants to effect a transaction detrimental to the other holders of Shares of that Fund. Similarly, applicants submit that, by using the same standards for valuing Portfolio Securities held by a Fund as are used for calculating “in-kind” redemptions or purchases, the Fund will ensure that its NAV will not be adversely affected by such securities transactions. Applicants also note that the ability to take deposits and make redemptions “in-kind” will help each Fund to track closely its Underlying Index and therefore aid in achieving the Fund's objectives.
22. Applicants also seek relief under sections 6(c) and 17(b) from section 17(a) to permit a Fund that is an affiliated person, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person, of a Fund of Funds to sell its Shares to and redeem its Shares from a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions with the Fund of Funds.
Applicants agree that any order of the Commission granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. The requested relief to permit ETF operations will expire on the effective date of any Commission rule under the Act that provides relief permitting the operation of index-based ETFs.
2. As long as a Fund operates in reliance on the requested order, the Shares of such Fund will be listed on an Exchange.
3. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed as an open-end investment company or a mutual fund. Any advertising material that describes the purchase or sale of Creation Units or refers to redeemability will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable and that owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to a Fund in Creation Units only.
4. The Web site, which is and will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain, on a per Share basis for each Fund, the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or the midpoint of the bid/ask spread at the time of the calculation of such NAV (“Bid/Ask Price”), and a calculation of the premium or discount of the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price against such NAV.
5. Each Self-Indexing Fund, Long/Short Fund and 130/30 Fund will post on the Web site on each Business Day, before commencement of trading of Shares on the Exchange, the Fund's Portfolio Holdings.
6. No Adviser or any Sub-Adviser to a Self-Indexing Fund, directly or indirectly, will cause any Authorized Participant (or any investor on whose behalf an Authorized Participant may
1. The members of a Fund of Funds' Advisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. The members of a Fund of Funds' Sub-Advisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. If, as a result of a decrease in the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, the Fund of Funds' Advisory Group or the Fund of Funds' Sub-Advisory Group, each in the aggregate, becomes a holder of more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, it will vote its Shares of the Fund in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the Fund's Shares. This condition does not apply to the Fund of Funds' Sub-Advisory Group with respect to a Fund for which the Fund of Funds' Sub-Adviser or a person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Fund of Funds' Sub-Adviser acts as the investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act.
2. No Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate will cause any existing or potential investment by the Fund of Funds in a Fund to influence the terms of any services or transactions between the Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate and the Fund or a Fund Affiliate.
3. The board of directors or trustees of an Investing Management Company, including a majority of the disinterested directors or trustees, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the Fund of Funds Adviser and Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser are conducting the investment program of the Investing Management Company without taking into account any consideration received by the Investing Management Company or a Fund of Funds Affiliate from a Fund or Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions.
4. Once an investment by a Fund of Funds in the securities of a Fund exceeds the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Board of the Fund, including a majority of the disinterested directors or trustees will determine that any consideration paid by the Fund to the Fund of Funds or a Fund of Funds Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions: (i) is fair and reasonable in relation to the nature and quality of the services and benefits received by the Fund; (ii) is within the range of consideration that the Fund would be required to pay to another unaffiliated entity in connection with the same services or transactions; and (iii) does not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned. This condition does not apply with respect to any services or transactions between a Fund and its investment adviser(s), or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with such investment adviser(s).
5. The Fund of Funds Adviser, or trustee or Sponsor of an Investing Trust, as applicable, will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Fund of Funds in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by a Fund under rule 12b-l under the Act) received from a Fund by the Fund of Funds Adviser, or trustee or Sponsor of the Investing Trust, or an affiliated person of the Fund of Funds Adviser, or trustee or Sponsor of the Investing Trust, other than any advisory fees paid to the Fund of Funds Adviser, trustee or Sponsor of an Investing Trust, or its affiliated person by the Fund, in connection with the investment by the Fund of Funds in the Fund. Any Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser will waive fees otherwise payable to the Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser, directly or indirectly, by the Investing Management Company in an amount at least equal to any compensation received from a Fund by the Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser, or an affiliated person of the Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser, other than any advisory fees paid to the Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser or its affiliated person by the Fund, in connection with the investment by the Investing Management Company in the Fund made at the direction of the Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser. In the event that the Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser waives fees, the benefit of the waiver will be passed through to the Investing Management Company.
6. No Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to a Fund) will cause a Fund to purchase a security in any Affiliated Underwriting.
7. The Board of a Fund, including a majority of the disinterested directors or trustees, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to monitor any purchases of securities by the Fund in an Affiliated Underwriting, once an investment by a Fund of Funds in the securities of the Fund exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, including any purchases made directly from an Underwriting Affiliate. The Board will review these purchases periodically, but no less frequently than annually, to determine whether the purchases were influenced by the investment by the Fund of Funds in the Fund. The Board will consider, among other things: (i) whether the purchases were consistent with the investment objectives and policies of the Fund; (ii) how the performance of securities purchased in an Affiliated Underwriting compares to the performance of comparable securities purchased during a comparable period of time in underwritings other than Affiliated Underwritings or to a benchmark such as a comparable market index; and (iii) whether the amount of securities purchased by the Fund in Affiliated Underwritings and the amount purchased directly from an Underwriting Affiliate have changed significantly from prior years. The Board will take any appropriate actions based on its review, including, if appropriate, the institution of procedures designed to ensure that purchases of securities in Affiliated Underwritings are in the best interest of shareholders of the Fund.
8. Each Fund will maintain and preserve permanently in an easily accessible place a written copy of the procedures described in the preceding condition, and any modifications to such procedures, and will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any purchase in an Affiliated Underwriting occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, a written record of each purchase of securities in Affiliated Underwritings once an investment by a Fund of Funds in the securities of the Fund exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, setting forth from whom the securities were acquired, the identity of the underwriting syndicate's members, the terms of the purchase, and the information or materials upon which the Board's determinations were made.
9. Before investing in a Fund in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A), a Fund of Funds and the Trust will execute a FOF Participation Agreement stating, without limitation, that their respective boards of directors or trustees and their investment advisers, or trustee and Sponsor, as applicable, understand the terms and conditions of the order, and agree to fulfill their responsibilities under the order. At the time of its investment in Shares of a Fund in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i), a Fund of Funds will notify the Fund of the investment. At such time, the Fund of
10. Before approving any advisory contract under section 15 of the Act, the board of directors or trustees of each Investing Management Company including a majority of the disinterested directors or trustees, will find that the advisory fees charged under such contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided under the advisory contract(s) of any Fund in which the Investing Management Company may invest. These findings and their basis will be fully recorded in the minute books of the appropriate Investing Management Company.
11. Any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of a Fund of Funds will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830.
12. No Fund will acquire securities of an investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent the Fund acquires securities of another investment company pursuant to exemptive relief from the Commission permitting the Fund to acquire securities of one or more investment companies for short-term cash management purposes.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of Meeting of Securities and Exchange Commission Dodd-Frank Investor Advisory Committee.
The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee, established pursuant to Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, is providing notice that it will hold a public meeting. The public is invited to submit written statements to the Committee.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, July 10, 2014 from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. (EDT). Written statements should be received on or before July 10, 2014.
The meeting will be held in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at
Use the Commission's Internet submission form (
Send an email message to
Send paper statements to Kevin M. O'Neill, Deputy Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Statements also will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
Marc Sharma, Senior Special Counsel, Office of the Investor Advocate, at (202) 551-3302, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
The meeting will be open to the public, except during portions of the meeting reserved for meetings of the Committee's subcommittees. Persons needing special accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify the contact person listed in
The agenda for the meeting includes: Remarks from Commissioners; a public administrative session; a discussion of the definition of accredited investor (which may include a recommendation of the Investor as Purchaser subcommittee); a discussion of elder fraud; a briefing by Commission staff on market structure and the proposed Market Structure Advisory Committee; and nonpublic subcommittee meetings.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASDAQ proposes a rule change to delay implementation of the Opening Cross Contingency.
In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed
NASDAQ is proposing to delay implementation of the Opening Cross Contingency, which was adopted by the Exchange on May 13, 2014
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
OneChicago is proposing to file with the SEC certain rule changes and Notices to Members (“NTMs”) that the Exchange has previously filed with the CFTC, but did not file with the SEC. Those rule filings and NTMs relate to reporting, sales practices, and OCX's obligation to enforce the securities laws.
During the Review Period, OneChicago issued one NTM interpreting OCX's reporting requirements. NTM 2012-13, which was filed with the CFTC on June 19, 2012, provides guidance with regard to the requirement that market participants trading bilateral blocks and Exchange of Future for Physical (“EFPs”) on OCX report the trades “without delay.”
Market participants trading bilateral EFPs in accordance with OCX Rule 416 or bilateral blocks in accordance with OCX Rule 417 must report their trade to the Exchange without delay. The requirement that bilateral block trades be reported without delay is codified in OCX Rule 417(c). NTM 2012-13 clarifies the term “without delay” with regard to the reporting of a block trade, and also extends the “without delay” reporting requirement to EFPs.
In order for trade prices to accurately reflect current market conditions, OneChicago requires market participants trading blocks and EFPs bilaterally to report their block and EFP trades to the Exchange without delay. NTM 2012-13 provides guidance by interpreting the term “without delay.” NTM 2012-13 provides that the term “without delay” means that a bilateral block trade or EFP trade must be reported to the Exchange within five minutes of the deal being completed.
The NTM notes that the five minute requirement exists during normal market conditions. There may be extenuating circumstances in which it is not possible for, or reasonable to expect, a market participant to report a trade or series of trades within five minutes. For example, firms may require additional time to report a trade when reporting multiple fills simultaneously. Furthermore, since OneChicago's Block and EFP Trading System (“OCX.BETS”) requires that one party post and the other party accept a trade, the NTM explains that the posting party must post the trade within five minutes, and the accepting party then has five minutes from the time of posting to accept the trade.
During the Review Period OCX made three filings related to Sales Practices. Two of those filings, NTM 2012-14 and NTM 2013-09, relate to the requirement that an executing firm fully disclose the price of EFP trades to its customer. These two filings apply to all EFPs executed on OneChicago, regardless whether executed bilaterally or electronically. The other filing, NTM 2013-12, relates to the requirement that a firm engaging in a payment for order flow arrangement disclose the existence of such an arrangement to its customers.
On July 2, 2012, OneChicago filed NTM 2012-14 with the CFTC. NTM 2012-14 allows for the practice of “marking up” or “marking down” (collectively “marking”) the cash leg of an EFP when trading an EFP for a customer.
NTM 2012-14 imposes the requirement that a firm executing EFPs for a customer provide the original stock price that the executing firm received on the trade. This requirement allows EFP
The NTM goes on to allow member firms facilitating EFP trades to execute the stock leg of the transaction as principal, provided that the member firm can demonstrate that the stock leg was passed through to the customer who traded the EFP.
On April 3, 2013, OCX filed NTM 2013-09 with the CFTC. NTM 2013-09 expands upon the disclosure requirement imposed by NTM 2012-14. In addition to providing the execution price to customers, the executing firm must also provide the net and gross price of executing the EFP. In other words, the EFP customer must be provided with the EFP execution price on its own, and the EFP execution price including the markup or markdown. In the example above, the EFP executing firm built its commission into the stock leg of the EFP. The firm received a stock sale price of $30.35 (for a gross EFP cost of $0.40 to the customer), but marked the sale price down to $30.25 (for a net EFP cost of $0.50 to the customer) in order to receive its $0.10 commission. In such a case, the executing firm must provide the gross EFP price ($0.40) and the net EFP price ($0.50), which includes any markup or markdown. OneChicago believes imposing this additional requirement allows customers to be fully informed as to the commissions they are paying to transact an EFP because displaying the gross and net EFP price makes it easy for customers to determine fees they have been charged.
On July 9, 2013, OCX filed NTM 2013-12 with the CFTC. NTM 2013-12 requires market participants engaging in payment for order flow arrangements to disclose such arrangements to its customers. Payment for order flow commonly refers to the practice whereby a firm routes orders to a liquidity provider in exchange for a fee paid from the liquidity provider to the referring firm. Before issuing NTM 2013-12, OneChicago became aware that firms trading OCX products were engaging in payment for order flow arrangements. Without endorsing or prohibiting such arrangements, NTM 2013-12 imposes the requirement that firms engaging in payment for order flow must disclose that fact to their customers. The NTM goes on to explain how firms may comply with the disclosure requirement, including (i) by providing notice within the customer confirmation; (ii) by placing a notice on the firm's public Web site; or (iii) by incorporating the disclosure within its customer account agreements.
During the Review Period, OneChicago filed several rule changes relating to its obligation to enforce the securities laws. OCX Rule 701 provides the Exchange authority to enforce Exchange Rules and Applicable Law, which the OCX Rulebook defines as “the CEA, [CFTC] Regulations, the [Securities] Exchange Act [of 1934], Exchange Act Regulations and margin rules adopted by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, all as amended from time to time.”
On July 20, 2012, OneChicago filed (revised filing submitted August 1, 2013) rule changes to amend OCX Rules 701 (General), 702 (Respondent Review of Evidence), 703 (Conducting Hearings of Disciplinary Proceedings), 704 (Decision of Disciplinary Panel), 705 (Sanctions), and 706 (Appeal from Disciplinary Panel Decision, Summary Impositions of Fines and Other Summary Actions).
Rule 701 generally grants the Exchange jurisdiction to enforce its rules as well as Applicable Law. The Rule specifically permits Exchange staff to carry out investigations and requires market participants to comply with those investigations. Rule 701(d) in particular allows market participants to be represented by counsel during any OCX inquiry, investigation, or disciplinary proceeding. OneChicago proposes to amend Rule 701 by prohibiting market participants from choosing counsel that may have a conflict of interest. Specifically, the rule provides that “counsel may not be a member of the Board [of Directors of OneChicago] or disciplinary panel, any employee of the exchange or any person substantially related to the underlying investigation such as a material witness or respondent.”
OCX Rule 712(a) allows respondents in a disciplinary hearing commenced by OneChicago to “review all books, records, documents, papers, transcripts of testimony and other tangible evidence in the possession or under the control of the Exchange that the Department will use to support the allegations and proposed sanctions in the notice of charges or which the chairman of the Disciplinary Panel deems relevant to the disciplinary proceedings.” OneChicago proposes to amend Rule 712(a) by clarifying that although respondents in disciplinary hearings are permitted broad access to OCX documents that will be entered in a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent, the respondent will not have the right to inspect documents prepared by an Exchange employee that will not be entered into evidence in the disciplinary proceedings, any documents that may disclose guidelines or investigative techniques, or any other documents from a confidential source. OneChicago believes this rule change will allow respondents to access documents related to a disciplinary proceeding, without compromising Exchange work product, investigatory techniques, or confidential sources. The proposed rule change preserves the Exchange's ability as a self-regulatory organization to enforce its rules and the securities laws.
OCX Rule 713 generally outlines the procedure OneChicago staff must follow in conducting a disciplinary proceeding. OCX Rule 713(g) allows for the recording or transcription of any hearing conducted in connection with a disciplinary proceeding. OneChicago is proposing to amend Rule 713(g) to state
OCX Rule 714 describes the process by which the Disciplinary Panel must issue an order rendering its decision. Rule 714(b) requires that an order contain certain items and lists those items. OneChicago is proposing to make technical amendments to Rule 714(b) to more specifically describe the items required to be included in an order. The amendments proposed by OneChicago do not materially alter the contents of the order; rather, the amendments will require more specificity from the order, particularly with regard to an explanation of the evidentiary basis for the Disciplinary Panel's finding.
OCX Rule 715 grants OneChicago authority to impose sanctions on a respondent after notice and opportunity for a hearing in accordance with the OCX Rulebook. Rule 715 lists the type of sanctions that the Exchange may impose on a respondent. OneChicago is proposing to add subparagraph (c) to OCX Rule 715 in order to clarify that any sanction imposed by the Exchange against a respondent must be sufficient to deter recidivism and must take into account the respondent's disciplinary history.
OCX Rule 716 allows a respondent to appeal from a Disciplinary Panel Decision. Rule 716(i) requires the Appeals Panel to render its decision in a statement of findings of fact and conclusions. OneChicago is proposing to amend Rule 716(i) to require, in addition to such statement of findings of fact and conclusions, a complete explanation of the evidentiary and other basis for such finding and conclusions.
On August 3, 2012, OneChicago filed (revised filing submitted August 6, 2012) rule changes to amend OCX Rule 307 and the cover page of the OCX Rulebook. OCX Rule 307 lays out OneChicago's jurisdiction and requires market participants to be bound by all Exchange Rules. The list of market participants over whom OneChicago has jurisdiction is specified in OCX Rule 307(a). OCX Rule 307(a) imposes jurisdiction on Clearing Members, Exchange Members or Access Persons who access or enter any order into the OneChicago System. OneChicago is proposing to expand its jurisdiction to capture “any person initiating or executing a transaction on or subject to the Rules of the Exchange directly or through an intermediary, and any Person for whose benefit such a transaction has been initiated or executed.” The proposed amendment further states that such persons are subject to the requirement that they comply with investigations and disciplinary processes initiated by OneChicago. This amendment will expand the scope of OneChicago's jurisdiction and allow it to gather more information in its investigations in order to more accurately and fairly enforce Exchange Rules.
In addition to modifying OCX Rule 307, the amendment adds a disclaimer to the cover page of the OCX Rulebook. That disclaimer mirrors the language of the amendment to OCX Rule 307(a). The purpose of this amendment is to make clear the scope of OCX's jurisdiction to market participants upon first accessing the OCX Rulebook.
The foregoing amendments were prepared and filed in consultation and in unison with other Designated Contract Markets registered with the CFTC. Additionally, the language of the above rule changes was approved by the CFTC prior to filing.
The August 29, 2012 rule change further modifies OCX Rule 307. Specifically, OneChicago proposes to add subparagraph (d) to OCX Rule 307. Subparagraph (d) clarifies that any person who is not a Clearing Member, Exchange Member, or Access Person, but who is still subject to OneChicago's jurisdiction pursuant to OCX Rule 307, is bound to comply with Exchange Rules to the same extent that the aforementioned market participants are. Proposed OCX Rule 307(d) then lists the Exchange Rules that such market participants are bound to comply with. The listed rules span most of the Exchange Rulebook, including chapters 4, 5, and 6, which generally deal with business practices and trading rules.
OCX Rule 127 defines the Disciplinary Panel, which oversees Disciplinary Proceedings. Previously, Rule 127 required that the Disciplinary Panel consist of three individuals from the Exchange's Board and/or Exchange Members. The February 27, 2013 amendment (substantively revised March 3, 2013) proposes to remove the requirement that Disciplinary Panel members be Exchange Members, and allows for Disciplinary Panel members to be selected from the public (and who would otherwise meet the requirements of selection as a Public Director). OneChicago believes this amendment will broaden the scope of market participants and members of the public that are eligible to serve as members of the Disciplinary Panel, thereby increasing the diversity of views and interests represented by the panel.
The rule filings and NTMs are attached as
In its filing with the Commission, OneChicago included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule changes. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of OneChicago's filing is to update the OCX Rulebook to account for various filings OneChicago has previously made with the CFTC, but has not made concurrently with the SEC. Specifically, the purpose of rule filings and NTMs are to (1) clarify the obligations of market participants with regard to reporting requirements; (2) require certain disclosures relating to sales practices; and (3) update OneChicago's disciplinary process to comply with the Core Principles and Other Requirements for Designated Contract Markets, which implements Section 735 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.
OneChicago believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
OneChicago does not believe that the rule changes will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they merely clarify the obligations of parties that transact EFPs, enhance customer protection through disclosure, apply to all market participants equally, and strengthen OCX's disciplinary process to ensure that trading activity and the disciplinary processes on the Exchange remains fair, equitable, and competitive.
Comments on the OneChicago proposed rule change have not been solicited and none have been received.
OneChicago filed the proposed rule changes with the CFTC between June 19, 2012 and July 9, 2013. OneChicago did not file the proposed rule changes concurrently with the SEC. Instead, OneChicago filed the proposed rule changes on May 14, 2014.
At any time within 60 days of the date of effectiveness
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 7, 2014, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “EDGX”) 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 add a new order type—called the Mid-Point Discretionary Order or MDO. An MDO would be a limit order to buy that is displayed and pegged to the National Best Bid (“NBB”), with discretion to execute at prices up to and including
An MDO would not independently establish or maintain the NBB or NBO; rather, the displayed price of the MDO would be derived from the NBB or NBO. Accordingly, an MDO would be cancelled if no NBBO exists. An MDO would also be cancelled if a trading halt is declared by the listing market.
Upon entry into the System, an MDO would not be eligible to execute immediately at its displayed price; however, it would be eligible to execute at the mid-point of the NBBO.
An MDO would not be eligible to execute against resting Discretionary Orders,
An MDO could include a limit price, by which its displayed price and discretion to the mid-point of the NBBO would be bound.
The Exchange also proposes to address how an MDO would comply with the National Market System Plan, also known as Limit Up/Limit Down (“LULD”), established pursuant to Rule 608 of the Act, to address extraordinary market volatility (“LULD Plan”).
The Exchange proposes to amend EDGX Rule 11.8(a) to reflect the priority an MDO would have when it is executed within its discretionary range. Specifically, current EDGX Rule 11.8(a)(2) states that the EDGX System shall execute equally priced trading interest in time priority in the following order: (i) Displayed size of limit orders; (ii) Mid-Point Match Orders; (iii) non-displayed limit orders and the reserve quantity of Reserve Orders;
In addition, the Exchange proposes to address the priority of orders when an MDO is posted to the EDGX Book. Where orders to buy (or sell) are made at the same price, EDGX Rule 11.8(a)(2) requires that the order clearly established as the first entered into the System at that price shall have precedence up to the number of shares of stock specified in the order.
For example, assume that the NBBO is $10.00 × $10.01, and that User A
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. The sections of the Act applicable to the proposed rule change that provide the grounds for approval or disapproval under consideration are Section 6(b)(5).
The interaction (or non-interaction) of the MDO with other orders on the EDGX Book raises important issues that warrant further public comment and Commission consideration. Specifically, in certain circumstances, as described above, an incoming MDO, which functions as a post-only order type, would not interact with a resting non-post-only order, but would interact with
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above, as well as any others they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change is inconsistent with Section6(b)(5), or any other provision, of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by July 17, 2014. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by July 31, 2014.
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the following:
1. As proposed, an incoming MDO would not execute against certain resting orders willing to pay a take fee, but could instead execute against later-arriving orders identical to the resting orders.
2. The Exchange asserts that, once a User's order is posted to the EDGX Book, the User expects to receive a rebate, even if it was willing to pay a take fee when the order was initially submitted.
3. The Exchange indicates that one reason an incoming MDO would not execute against a resting, contra-side Discretionary Order or MDO is because, in this circumstance, the provider of liquidity would receive a rebate while the taker of liquidity would be charged no fee.
4. What type of market participants would avail themselves of the MDO, and how and why would the order type improve market quality or otherwise promote fair and orderly markets, or the protection of investors and the public interest?
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “SEA”)
FINRA is proposing to adopt a supplemental schedule for inventory positions pursuant to FINRA Rule 4524 (Supplemental FOCUS Information).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in Items II.A., II.B., and II.C. below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Pursuant to SEA Rule 17a-5,
FINRA Rule 4524 (Supplemental FOCUS Information) requires each firm, as FINRA shall designate, to file such additional financial or operational schedules or reports as FINRA may deem necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors or in the public interest as a supplement to the FOCUS Report.
The proposal requires the SIS to be filed by firms that are required to file FOCUS Report Part II, FOCUS Report Part IIA or FOGS Report Part I with inventory positions as of the end of the FOCUS or FOGS reporting period with two exceptions. The first exception is for firms that have a minimum net capital or liquid capital requirement
The proposed SIS is intended to capture more details of a firm's long and short inventory positions than what is captured on the FOCUS Report Part II, FOCUS Report Part IIA and FOGS Report Part I. For example, FOCUS Report Part II, FOCUS Report Part IIA and FOGS Report Part I require total inventory of securities sold short to be reported in aggregate (Item 1620), providing no information on the types of securities sold short by firms. In addition, FOGS Report Part I requires that all long inventory be reported in aggregate (Item 850). Further, on FOCUS Report Part II and IIA, long inventory is reported in categories that aggregate securities with different market risk profiles (
The proposed rule change will be effective upon Commission approval. FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed supplemental schedule in a
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA believes that the economic and operational impact associated with completion of the proposed SIS would be minimal because the required information should be readily available to firms, as it is necessary for purposes of computing the haircut deductions required under SEA Rule 15c3-1.
As discussed in Item II.C. below, FINRA initially considered exempting from the SIS filing requirement those firms that had inventory positions consisting only of U.S. Treasury securities or money market mutual funds. However, three commenters questioned the U.S. Treasury exemption, noting among other factors the market risk posed by certain U.S. Treasury securities and the risks posed by concentrations in those securities. Alternatively, these commenters suggested exemptions based on a firm's level of excess capital and leverage, for short-term instruments and for small broker-dealers. In response to commenters' suggestions, FINRA is not proposing an exemption for U.S. Treasury securities. However, FINRA is proposing at this time to exempt from the SIS filing requirement those firms that have a minimum net capital or liquid capital requirement of less than $100,000. FINRA believes that exempting such firms should serve to reduce the compliance burdens for many small firms while also ensuring that FINRA receives the SIS data from those firms that pose higher risk to customers and other market participants.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in
In the
FINRA has considered these comments and agrees that a firm that has inventory positions consisting only of U.S. Treasury securities should be required to file the proposed SIS. FINRA, however, proposes to exempt from the filing requirement those firms that: (1) Have a minimum net capital or liquid capital requirement of less than $100,000; or (2) have inventory positions consisting only of money market mutual funds. In response to the comment for a short-term instrument exemption, FINRA notes that the proposal exempts firms with inventory positions consisting only of money market mutual funds. However, FINRA believes that firms with inventory positions in short-term funds or high-grade debt instruments maturing in the short term should not be exempted from the proposed SIS as those positions are subject to greater market risk. For example, the credit crisis showed that short-term debt instruments (
In the
In the
Consistent with the discussion above, FINRA believes that the economic impact associated with completion of the proposed SIS would be minimal because the required information should be readily available to firms, as it is necessary for purposes of computing the haircut deductions required under SEA Rule 15c3-1.
One commenter was concerned that there were no instructions provided for the proposed SIS and that key definitions such as “arbitrage” and “no ready market” are not defined.
In response to the commenter, FINRA has developed instructions for the proposed SIS. The instructions include guidance, clarifications and definitions with respect to specific line items that FINRA believes should ameliorate the commenter's concern. In addition, FINRA has amended the proposed SIS to state “[s]ecurities with no ready market” on line 13, instead of “[i]nvestments with no ready market,” to alleviate confusion and has removed the line item for a beginning period date. With regard to capturing information about repurchase agreements and securities lending, FINRA notes that the proposed SIS is an inventory schedule and, as such, is not intended to capture financing transactions. In response to the comment about itemizing derivatives exposures by market bias, FINRA has expanded the “Derivatives including Options” on line 11 to distinguish between centrally cleared derivatives and other derivatives and to require a limited breakdown of information for the two categories. In addition, FINRA notes that additional derivatives information is captured on the Derivatives and Other Off-Balance Sheet Schedule. Finally, in response to the request for a breakdown of the types of commodities actually being held, FINRA believes, at this time, that the proposed SIS captures the information that is needed to enable FINRA staff to
One commenter offered an alternative to the proposed SIS.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change; or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and 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 to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2014-025 and should be submitted on or before July 17, 2014.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 16, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange has proposed to list and trade the Shares under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange. The Shares will be offered by Fidelity Merrimack Street Trust (“Trust”). The Trust is registered with the Commission as an open-end management investment company.
The Exchange has made the following representations and statements regarding the Fund.
The Fund will seek a high level of current income and normally
While FMR normally will invest at least 80% of assets of the Fund in investment-grade corporate bonds and other corporate debt securities, as described above, FMR may invest up to 20% of the Fund's assets in other securities and financial instruments, as summarized below.
In addition to corporate debt securities, the debt securities in which the Fund may invest are U.S. Government securities; repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreements; mortgage- and other asset-backed securities; loans; loan participations, loan assignments, and other evidences of indebtedness, including letters of credit, revolving credit facilities, and other standby financing commitments; structured securities; stripped securities; municipal securities; sovereign debt obligations; obligations of international agencies or supranational entities; and other securities believed to have debt-like characteristics, including hybrid securities, which may offer characteristics similar to those of a bond security such as stated maturity and preference over equity in bankruptcy. (The securities described in the preceding sentence, along with corporate debt securities, are collectively referred to herein as “Debt Securities”.)
The Fund may invest in securities of other investment companies, including shares of ETFs registered under the 1940 Act, closed-end investment companies (which include business development companies), unit investment trusts, and open-end investment companies. In addition, the Fund may invest in other exchange-traded products (“ETPs”) such as commodity pools.
The Fund may invest in inverse ETFs (also called “short ETFs” or “bear ETFs”), shares of which are expected to increase in value as the value of the underlying benchmark decreases.
The Fund also may invest in leveraged ETFs, which seek to deliver multiples or inverse multiples of the performance of an index or other benchmark they track and which use derivatives in an effort to amplify the returns of the underlying index or benchmark.
The Fund may invest in exchange-traded notes (“ETNs”), which are a type of senior, unsecured, unsubordinated debt security that is issued by a financial institution and that pays a return based on the performance of a reference asset. It is anticipated that the
The Fund may invest in American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) as well as other “hybrid” forms of ADRs, including European Depositary Receipts (“EDRs”) and Global Depositary Receipts (“GDRs”), which are certificates evidencing ownership of shares of a foreign issuer.
FMR may make investments in derivatives—regardless of whether the Fund may own the asset, instrument, or components of the index underlying the derivative, as applicable (
The Fund may conduct foreign currency transactions on a spot (
The Fund may invest in exchange-listed futures. The exchange-listed futures contracts in which the Fund may invest will have various types of underlying instruments, including specific assets or securities, baskets of assets or securities, commodities or commodities indexes, indexes of securities prices, indexes of rates, or rates.
The Fund may invest in U.S. exchange-traded option, as well as over-the-counter (“OTC”) options. The OTC options in which the Fund may invest will have various types of underlying instruments, including specific assets or securities, baskets of assets or securities, indexes of securities or commodities prices, and futures contracts (including commodity futures contracts). To the extent that the Fund invests in OTC options, not more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund in the aggregate shall consist of futures contracts or exchange-traded options contracts whose principal market is not a member of ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
The Fund may also buy and sell options on swaps (swaptions), which are generally options on interest-rate swaps. The Fund may hold swap agreements, a portion of which may be cleared swaps. The Fund may enter into, among other things, interest rate swaps (where the parties exchange a floating rate for a fixed rate), asset swaps (
The Fund may invest in lower-quality Debt Securities. Lower-quality Debt Securities include all types of debt instruments, including debt securities of foreign issuers, that have poor protection with respect to the payment of interest and repayment of principal, and they may be in default.
The Fund may invest in preferred securities. Preferred securities, which may take the form of preferred stock, represent an equity or ownership interest in an issuer that pays dividends at a specified rate and have precedence over common stock in the payment of dividends.
The Fund may invest in real estate investment trusts (“REITS”). The Fund may invest in exchange-listed and non-exchange-listed REITs.
The Fund may invest in restricted securities, which are subject to legal restrictions on their sale.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to list and trade the Shares is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission finds that the proposal to list and trade the Shares on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act,
Quotation information for OTC-Traded Securities, OTC-traded derivative instruments (such as options, swaps, forwards, and currency-related derivatives), and investment company securities (excluding ETFs), may be obtained from brokers and dealers who make markets in such instruments or through nationally recognized pricing services through subscription agreements.
Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services.
In addition, the Portfolio Indicative Value, as defined in NYSE Arca Equities
The net asset value (“NAV”) of the Fund for the Shares will be calculated after 4:00 p.m. Eastern time each trading day.
Further, the Commission believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Core Trading Session (9:30 a.m. Eastern time to 4:00 p.m. Eastern time) on the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on the Trust's Web site the Disclosed Portfolio, as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(c)(2), that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the business day.
In addition, the Fund will make available through the NSCC on each business day, prior to the opening of trading on the NYSE (currently 9:30 a.m. Eastern time), the list of the names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Security and the amount of the Cash Component (or Cash Deposit) to be included in the current Portfolio Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous business day) for the Fund.
Further, the Commission notes that personnel who make decisions on the Fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio.
The Exchange represents that the Manager and the Sub-Advisers are not broker-dealers but are affiliated with one or more broker-dealers and have implemented a firewall with respect to such broker-dealers regarding access to information concerning the composition of or changes to the Fund's portfolio and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the Fund's portfolio.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares.
The Exchange has represented that the Shares are deemed to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's rules governing the trading of equity securities.
In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made additional representations, including:
(1) The Shares will conform to the initial and continuing listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.
(2) The Exchange's surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
(3) FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and underlying exchange-traded options, futures, exchange-traded equity securities (including ADRs, EDRs, and GDRs), and other exchange-traded instruments with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and underlying exchange-traded options, futures, exchange-traded equity securities (including ADRs, EDRs, and GDRs), and other exchange-traded instruments from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and underlying exchange-traded options, futures, exchange-traded equity securities (including ADRs, EDRs, and GDRs), and other exchange-traded instruments from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, FINRA, on
(4) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(5) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Unit aggregations (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its Equity Trading Permit Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated Portfolio Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (4) how information regarding the Portfolio Indicative Value is disseminated; (5) the requirement that Equity Trading Permit Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information.
(6) For initial and continued listing, the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Exchange Act,
(7) The Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective.
(8) The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A securities deemed illiquid by the Manager or Sub-Advisers. The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in illiquid assets.
(9) A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether the Amendments are consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments Nos. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of BioMedical Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2011.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Chaolei Marketing and Finance Company because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2010.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Clear-Lite Holdings, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended January 31, 2011.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Encompass Group Affiliates, Inc. (n/k/a Re-Act Enterprises, Inc.) because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2011.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Hydron Technologies, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2010.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Sun American Bancorp because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2009.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of XenaCare Holdings, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 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 companies. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on June 24, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 8, 2014.
By the Commission.
Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this matter pursuant to Section 219(a)(4)(C) and (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C), (b)) (“INA”), and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of State concludes that the circumstances that were the basis for the 2008 decision to maintain the designation of the aforementioned organization as a foreign terrorist organization have not changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation of the designation and that the national security of the United States does not warrant a revocation of the designation, and that there is a sufficient factual basis to find that Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, also known under the aliases listed above, uses or has used additional aliases, namely, Jama'at-ud-Dawa, Al-Anfal Trust, Tehrik-e-Hurmat-e-Rasool, and Tehrik-e-Tahafuz Qibla Awwal.
Therefore, the Secretary of State hereby determines that the designation of the aforementioned organization as a foreign terrorist organization, pursuant to Section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be maintained. In addition, effective upon the date of publication in the
The Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy (ACIEP) will meet from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., on Wednesday, July 23, 2014, in Room 4477 of the Harry S. Truman Building at the U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will be hosted by the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs, Charles H. Rivkin, and Committee Chair Ted Kassinger. The ACIEP serves the U.S. Government in a solely advisory capacity, and provides advice concerning topics in international economic policy. The meeting will examine “U.S. Russia Relations.”
This meeting is open to public participation, though seating is limited. Entry to the building is controlled; to obtain pre-clearance for entry, members of the public planning to attend should provide no later than July 17, their name, professional affiliation, valid government-issued ID number (i.e., U.S. Government ID [agency], U.S. military ID [branch], passport [country], or drivers license [state]), date of birth, and citizenship, to Ronelle Jackson by
Personal data is requested pursuant to Public Law 99-399 (Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986), as amended; Public Law 107-56 (USA PATRIOT Act); and
For additional information, contact Gregory Maggio, Office of Economic Policy Analysis and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, at (202) 647-2231 or
Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Department of State has forwarded the attached Notifications of Proposed Export Licenses to the Congress on the dates indicated on the attachments pursuant to sections 36(c) and 36(d), and in compliance with section 36(f), of the Arms Export Control Act.
Ms. Lisa V. Aguirre, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Department of State, telephone (202) 663-2830; email
Section 36(f) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) mandates that notifications to the Congress pursuant to sections 36(c) and 36(d) must be published in the
Following are such notifications to the Congress:
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to HS Wroclaw Sp.Zo.O and Wytwornia Sprzetu Komunicacyjnego Pzl-Rzeszow S.A. of Poland for the design, development, manufacture, production, repair and refurbishment of machined products used in military engines, aircraft, and helicopters.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Sections 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification authorizes BAE Systems to export defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Agusta Westland, Ltd. and Agusta Westland S.p.A Italy, which are required to support seating systems, restraint systems, cockpit airbag systems, floor armor and associated components provided by BAE Systems to various end users.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Japan to support the manufacture, integration, installation, operation, training, testing, maintenance, and repair of nose cones, third stage rocket motors, staging assemblies, second stage rocket motors, and steering control systems/control surface assemblies for the Standard Missile 3-Block IIA Missile for the AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense System. The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia to support the manufacture, installation, integration, training, testing, repair, and maintenance of the ARC-210, 629F-11A VHF/UHF communication system to be integrated into Hawker Aircraft in the United Kingdom for the retransfer to and end-use by the Royal Saudi Air Force.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Austria, France and Malaysia to support the ongoing design, development, engineering, delivery assembly, installation, integration, inspection, testing, evaluation, training, maintenance, and repair of the Malaysian Air Defense Ground Environment (MADGE) including Sentry-based Sector and Air Defense Operations Centers.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Chile of safe/semi/auto carbines 5.56x45mm NATO and accessories to the Chilean Police Force.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Canada for repair, overhaul, conversion, maintenance, assembly, testing, and servicing of TF40B and ETF40 gas turbine engines.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 40(g)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services, 15-days prior to permitting the export, that is necessary for and within the scope of the Presidential waiver to permit the provision of certain defense articles and services to various Syrian opposition forces, organizations implementing Department of State or U.S. Agency for International Development programs and international organizations for their eventual use in Syria.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Turkey, Jordan and Syria to support the Chemical and Biological Hazard Preparedness Program.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of firearm parts and components controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of various pistols to the Federal Gun Exchange in The Philippines for commercial resale in the Philippines.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 40(g)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles 15-days prior to permitting the export, which is necessary for and within the scope of the Presidential waiver to permit the provision of certain defense articles and services to various Syrian opposition forces, organizations implementing Department of State or U.S. Agency for International Development programs, and international organizations for the their eventual use in Syria.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles to Syria for self-protection of employees of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 40(g)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles 15 days prior to permitting the export, which is necessary for and within the scope of the Presidential waiver to permit the provision of certain defense articles and services to various Syrian opposition forces, organizations Uimplementing Department of State or U.S. Agency for International
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles to Syria for self-protection for personnel from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 40(g)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles 15-days prior to permitting the export, which is necessary for and within the scope of the Presidential waiver to permit the provision of certain defense articles and services to various Syrian opposition forces, organizations implementing Department of State or U.S. Agency for International Development programs, and international organizations for their eventual use in Syria.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles to Syria for self-protection for personnel from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Sections 36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for export for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification amends an existing agreement that authorizes the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to manufacture and support additional baseline “green” configured S-70i Blackhawk Helicopters.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 40(g)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles 15 days prior to permitting the export, which is necessary for and within the scope of the Presidential waiver to permit the provision of certain defense articles and services to various Syrian opposition forces, organizations implementing Department of State or U.S. Agency for International Development programs, and international organizations for their eventual use in Syria.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles to Syria for self-protection for personnel from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to the United Kingdom to establish a manufacturing capability for Associated Objects for the Missile Defense Agency's Targets and Countermeasures Program.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification authorizes the export of defense articles, including technical data, defense services and manufacture know-how, manufacturing assistance, and training to manufacture, assemble, and deliver certain F119 and F135 engine non-metallic parts and components for end use by the United States.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of firearm parts and components controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the transfer of technical information and services necessary for integration, operation, maintenance training, and follow-on support of the 7.62mm Automatic Chain Gun system to Norway in support of the CV9030 vehicle upgrade effort.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military,
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 40(g)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles 15 days prior to permitting the export, which is necessary for and within the scope of the Presidential waiver to permit the provision of certain defense articles and services to various Syrian opposition forces, organizations implementing Department of State or U.S. Agency for International Development programs, and international organizations for their eventual use in Syria.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles to Syria for self-protection for personnel from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Sections 36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for export for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense services, technical data and defense articles for the manufacture in Israel of the F-16 components to include the IAI-designed F-16 conformal fuel tanks.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed manufacturing license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Canada and Germany to support the manufacture of aircraft parts and components for the F110, F101, F118, F404, F414, T700, TF34, and TF39 aircraft engines.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed manufacturing license for export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification authorizes the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to support the manufacture of bearings for Sikorsky H-60/S-70, UH-60M, S-70i, H-53, H53E and H-3/H-61 helicopters for return to the United States.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 40(g)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles 15 days prior to permitting the export, which is necessary for and within the scope of the Presidential waiver to permit the provision of certain defense articles and services to various Syrian opposition forces, organizations implementing Department of State or U.S. Agency for International Development programs, and international organizations for their eventual use in Syria.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles to Syria for self-protection for personnel from the World Health Organization.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Canada for repair, overhaul, conversion, maintenance, assembly, testing, and servicing of TF40B and ETF40 gas turbine engines.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Sections 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification authorizes the export of defense articles, defense services, and technical data to the Government of India for aircraft engines, field service support, organizational, intermediate and depot level maintenance, and participation in the flight test program for the F404-GE-IN20 and F404-GE-F2J3 aircraft engines for end use by the Indian Air Force and Navy.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom to support the integration, installation, operation, training, testing, maintenance, and repair of the Saudi Arabia National Guard Rear Link Communications System.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of firearm parts and components controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of pistols and revolvers with magazines and accessories to the Philippines for commercial resale.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed amendment to a technical assistance agreement to include the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom for A400M Aircraft Oxygen Systems for use by the Governments of Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Malaysia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, and will be marketed to over 70 other countries.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Turkey to support assembly, inspection, and test of F110-GE-129D engines for F-16 aircraft for end-use by the Ministry of Defense of the Sultanate of Oman.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Japan to support the design, manufacture, maintenance, and repair of military flight simulation and training devices.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed manufacturing license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Canada and Germany to support the manufacture of aircraft parts and components for the F110, F101, F118, F404, F414, T700, TF34, and TF39 aircraft engines.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) and 36 (d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification authorizes the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to support the manufacture of engine parts for the F110-GE-100/100C/129 aircraft engines for end use by the Turkish Air Force.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Sections 36(c) and (d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license amendment for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Japan to support the manufacture, integration, installation, of the Japanese Patriot PAC-3 missile program.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of firearm parts and components controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of Cal .9mm, Cal .45 ACP, Cal .40 S&W, Cal .380 ACP, Cal .25 ACP and Cal .22LR semi-automatic pistols to the Philippines for commercial resale.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license amendment for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Saudi Arabia to support the operations, maintenance, and repair of the HAWK and Patriot Air Defense Missile Systems.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Japan to support the design, manufacture, launch and on-orbit test of JCSAT-14 satellite system.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license amendment for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Saudi Arabia to support the integration, installation, operation, training, testing, maintenance, and repair of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected All-Terrain Vehicles(M-ATV).
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of firearm parts and components controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of M134D-H 7.62x51mm Gatling Gun Hybrid and accessories to the Colombian Navy.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Sections 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification authorizes the export of defense articles, including technical data and defense services to provide Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) services to support the F-16IA Weapon System in Iraq.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services to support the launch of the Mexsat communications satellite.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of firearm parts and components controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of machine guns, grenade launchers, and tactical rifle systems to Panama for use by the Panama National Border Police.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification authorizes the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to facilitate the System Development and Demonstration (SDD), and Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program for all variants of the F-35 air systems.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services to France, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Sweden to support the Proton launch of the Yamal 601 Commercial Communications Satellite from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license amendment for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to the Republic of Korea to support the integration, installation, operation, training, testing, maintenance, and repair of the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Guided Missile Weapon System (GMWS).
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed amendment to a technical assistance agreement to include the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Israel to support the maintenance, repair, and overhaul at the Organizational, Intermediate, and Depot Level I of the J52 and F100 engines owned and operated by the GOI-MOD in order to maintain the operational readiness of their fleet of A-4, F-15, and F-16 military aircraft.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed amendment to a technical assistance agreement to include the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to include significant military equipment in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Mexico's Secretaria De La Defensa Nacional for the acquisition of six new T-6C aircraft to support the maintenance, training, and logistics support that include the ground based training system, spare inventory, and other support items for the aircraft.
The United States Government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed manufacturing license for export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification authorizes the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to support the design, manufacture, sale, modification, maintenance, overhaul, and repair, of the A400M propeller system, and components for the A400M aircraft to be sold to various government end users.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Sections 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed manufacture license for export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification authorizes the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to support the manufacture, sale, assembly, integration, quality assurance, inspection, troubleshooting, servicing, modification, test, calibration, maintenance, overhaul, repair of propellers, and parts for the Atlantique (ATL1 and ATL2) and Transall aircraft for end use by various governments.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed amendment to a manufacturing license agreement for export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification authorizes the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to support the manufacture, assembly, and inspection of F-16 and F-2 fuselage parts, and components for end use by Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Turkey, and the United States.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of firearm parts and components controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of various hunting rifles and accessories to Gun City in New Zealand for commercial resale in New Zealand.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Sections 36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including, technical data, and defense services for the manufacture of the T-50i aircraft in the Republic of Korea for end-use by the Government of Indonesia.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Australia for the development and production of the Mk 234 NULKA Electronic Decoy Cartridge (EDC) and the Mk 250 NULKA Training Aid for end-use by the Department of Defence of the Commonwealth of Australia.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Japan to support the integration, installation, operation, training, testing, intermediate level maintenance, and repair of the Maverick AGM-65 Weapon System with P-1 aircraft for the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF).
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 40(g) (2) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles 15 days prior to permitting the export, which is necessary for and within the scope of the Presidential waiver to permit the provision of certain defense articles and services to various Syrian opposition forces, organizations implementing Department of State or U.S. Agency for International Development programs, and international organizations for their eventual use in Syria.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles to Syria for self-protection for personnel from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license amendment for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to the Republic of Korea to support the manufacture, integration, installation, operation, training, testing, maintenance, and repair of Semi Auto Pistols firearm barrels, slides and frames to later assemble into firearms for commercial sales.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Sections 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license amendment for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the transfer of defense services, to include technical data, and defense services to support the Proton integration and launch of the Eutelsat 9B Commercial Communication Satellite from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Japan for the manufacture, use and repair of F-15J aircraft flight simulators.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services to Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, Russia, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom to support the design, manufacture, test, and delivery of the INMARSAT-5 commercial communications satellites.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the transfer of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services to support the Eutelsat E65WA Commercial Communication Satellite program.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) and (d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license for export for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to the United Kingdom, Italy and Saudi Arabia to support the manufacture, integration, installation, operation, training, testing, maintenance, and repair of the Enhanced Paveway II and Paveway IV GPS Aided Inertial Navigation System (GAINS).
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed license amendment for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, and Saudi Arabia to support the integration, installation, operation, training, testing, maintenance, and repair of the Paveway II and IIIs, Enhanced Paveway II and IIIs, and Paveway IV Weapons Systems for the Royal Saudi Air Force.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting, herewith, certification of a proposed export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification authorizes the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to support the delivery, operation, and maintenance of Sikorsky S-70B model helicopters for the Government of Singapore.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in
Therefore, the Secretary of State hereby amends the designation of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity, pursuant to Executive Order 13224, to include the following new aliases and other possible transliterations thereof: Al-Anfal Trust Tehrik-e-Hurmat-e-Rasool Tehrik-e-Tahafuz Qibla Awwal.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its findings on the Noise Compatibility Program submitted by Martin County under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. (the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and 14 CFR Part 150. These findings are made in recognition of the description of Federal and nonfederal responsibilities in Senate Report No. 96-52 (1980). On December 6, 2011, the FAA determined that the Noise Exposure Maps (NEM's) submitted by Martin County under Part 150 were in compliance with applicable requirements. On June 11, 2014, the FAA approved the Martin County Airport/Witham Field Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). Most of the recommendations of the program were approved.
Allan Nagy, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822, phone number: (407) 812-6331. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at this same location.
This notice announces that the FAA has given its overall approval to the Noise Compatibility Program for Martin County Airport/Witham Field, effective June 11, 2014.
Under Section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has previously submitted a Noise Exposure Map may submit to the FAA a Noise Compatibility Program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within the area covered by the Noise Exposure Maps. The Act requires such programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties including local communities, government agencies, airport users, and FAA personnel.
Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150 is a local program, not a Federal Program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for that of the airport operator with respect to which measure should be recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of 14 CFR Part 150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards expressed in 14 CFR Part 150 and the Act, and is limited to the following determinations:
a. The Noise Compatibility Program was developed in accordance with the provisions and procedures of 14 CFR Part 150;
b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or intrude into areas preempted by the Federal government; and
d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator prescribed by law.
Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport Noise Compatibility Program are delineated in 14 CFR Part 150, Section 150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. Where Federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must be submitted to the FAA Airports District Office in Orlando, FL.
On September 17, 2011, Martin County submitted to the FAA the Noise Exposure Maps and associated documentation produced during the Noise Exposure Map planning study conducted from December 2010 through September 17, 2011. The Martin County Airport/Witham Field Noise Exposure Maps were determined by FAA to be in compliance with applicable requirements 14 CFR Part 150 on December 6, 2011. Notice of this determination was published in the
After the Noise Exposure Maps were accepted by the FAA, the Martin County Airport/Witham Field prepared a Noise Compatibility Program study that contains proposed operational and land use actions designed for phased implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions. It was requested that FAA evaluate and approve this material as a Noise Compatibility Program as described in Section 47504 of the Act. The FAA began its formal review of the Program on December 18, 2013, and was required by a provision of the Act to approve or disapprove the Program within 180-days (other than the use of new or modified flight procedures for noise control). Failure to approve or disapprove such Program within the 180-day period shall be deemed to be an approval of such Program.
The submitted Program contained twenty-one (21) proposed actions for noise mitigation on and or off the airport. Of these twenty-one actions, the airport sponsor recommended seventeen mitigations measures for FAA review and approval. Four measures were not recommended by the airport sponsor. The FAA completed its review and
Outright FAA approval was granted for four (4) of the measures; approval on a voluntary basis was granted for six (6) of the measures; approval-in-part was granted for six (6) of the measures; a decision of disapproval was made for one (1) measure, and No FAA Action was required for four (4) of the measures because they were not recommended by the airport sponsor.
These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of Approval (ROA) signed by the FAA on June 11, 2014. The Record of Approval, as well as other evaluation materials and the documents comprising the submittal, are available for review at the FAA office listed above and at the administrative office of Martin County. The Record of Approval also will be available on-line at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before July 16, 2014.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2014-0352 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jake Troutman, (202) 267-9521, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20951.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA invites comments on an information collection under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control No. 2137-0622, titled “Pipeline Safety: Public Awareness Program.” PHMSA is preparing to request approval from OMB for a renewal of the current information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 25, 2014.
Comments may be submitted in the following ways:
Angela Dow by telephone at 202-366-1246, by fax at 202-366-4566, or by mail at U.S. DOT, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., PHP-30, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies an information collection request that PHMSA will be submitting to OMB for renewal and extension. The information collection expires October 31, 2014, and is identified under Control No. 2137-0622, titled: “Pipeline Safety: Public Awareness Program.” The following information is provided for this information collection: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3) Type of request; (4) Abstract of the information collection activity; (5) Description of affected public; (6) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (7) Frequency of collection. PHMSA will request a three-year term of approval for this information collection activity. PHMSA requests comments on the following information collection:
Comments are invited on:
(a) The need for the proposed collection of information for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, 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 collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques.
49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 and 49 CFR 1.97.
Soo Line Railroad Company (SOO), pursuant to a written trackage rights agreement, has agreed to grant overhead trackage rights to Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation d/b/a Canadian Pacific (DM&E) between mile post 159.0+/− on DM&E's Marquette Subdivision at or in the vicinity of Bluff, MN, over SOO's Tomah Subdivision and Watertown Subdivision to the connection SOO's and M&P Subdivision and over the MP& Subdivision to mile post 7.0 at or in the vicinity of Columbia, WI, a distance of approximately 119.0+/− miles.
The transaction may be consummated on or after July 10, 2014, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice of exemption was filed).
According to DM&E, the purpose of the transaction is to promote the more efficient and economical movement of freight by allowing DM&E continued handling of traffic between DM&E's Marquette Subdivision and SOO's Tomah, Watertown, and M&P Subdivisions.
As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk & Western Railway—Trackage Rights—Burlington Northern, Inc., 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast Railway—Lease & Operate—California Western Railroad, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).
This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed by July 3, 2014 (at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35834, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Terence M. Hynes, Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation (DM&E), pursuant to a written trackage rights agreement, has agreed to grant nonexclusive, local and overhead trackage rights to Soo Line Railroad Company (SOO) between milepost 159.0+/− on DM&E's Marquette Subdivision at or in the vicinity of Bluff, Minn. (previously known as La Crescent, Minn.), and milepost 96.7 on DM&E's Marquette Subdivision at or in the vicinity of McGregor, Iowa, a distance of approximately 62.3 miles.
The transaction may be consummated on or after July 10, 2014, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice of exemption was filed).
According to SOO, the purpose of the transaction is to promote the more efficient and economical movement of freight by allowing SOO continued handling of traffic between SOO's Tomah, Watertown, and M&P Subdivisions and DM&E's Marquette Subdivision.
As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in
This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35831, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Terence M. Hynes, Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8896, Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel Production Credit.
Written comments should be received on or before August 25, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for copies of the form and instructions should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6517, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 28, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
Customer Satisfaction Surveys: 17,500.
Focus Groups: 17,500.
Customer Comment Cards: 5,000.
Small Discussion Groups: 5,000.
Cognitive Laboratory Studies: 15,000.
Qualitative Customer Satisfaction Surveys: 17,500.
In-Person Observation Testing: 5,000.
Patient Surveys: 17,500.
Customer Satisfaction Surveys: 35,000.
Focus Groups: 35,000.
Customer Comment Cards: 10,000.
Small Discussion Groups: 10,000.
Cognitive Laboratory Studies: 30,000.
Qualitative Customer Satisfaction Surveys: 35,000.
In-Person Observation Testing: 10,000.
Patient Surveys: 35,000.
By direction of the Secretary.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 28, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.
The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
Customer Satisfaction Surveys: 20,000.
Focus Groups: 20,000.
Customer Comment Cards: 2,500.
Small Discussion Groups: 2,500.
Qualitative Customer Satisfaction Surveys: 2,500.
In-Person Observation Testing: 2,500.
Customer Satisfaction Surveys: 30 minutes.
Focus Groups: 30 minutes.
Customer Comment Cards: 30 minutes.
Small Discussion Groups: 30 minutes.
Cognitive Laboratory Studies: 30 minutes.
Qualitative Customer Satisfaction Surveys: 30 minutes.
In-Person Observation Testing: 30 minutes.
Patient Surveys: 30 minutes.
Customer Satisfaction Surveys: 40,000.
Focus Groups: 40,000.
Customer Comment Cards: 5,000.
Small Discussion Groups: 5,000.
Qualitative Customer Satisfaction Surveys: 5,000.
In-Person Observation Testing: 5,000.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 28, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA).
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is announcing the availability of one-year renewal funding in fiscal year (FY) 2014 for the 25 currently operational FY 2013 VA Grant and Per Diem (GPD) Special Need Grant Recipients and their collaborative VA Special Need partners (as applicable) to make re-applications for assistance under the Special Need Grant Component of VA's Homeless Providers GPD Program. The focus of this Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) is to encourage applicants to continue to deliver services to the homeless Special Need Veteran population as outlined in their FY 2009 Special Need application. This NOFA contains information concerning the program, application process, and amount of funding available.
An original signed and dated request for re-application letter, on agency letterhead for assistance under the VA's Homeless Providers GPD Program and associated documents, must be received in the GPD Program Office by 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 16, 2014 (see application requirements below).
Applications may not be sent by facsimile. In the interest of fairness to all competing applicants, this deadline is firm as to date and time, and VA will treat any application that is received after the deadline as ineligible for consideration. Applicants should make early submission of their material to avoid any risk of loss of eligibility as a result of unanticipated delays or other delivery-related problems.
An original signed, dated, completed, and collated grant re-application letter and all required associated documents must be submitted to the following address: VA Homeless Providers GPD Program Office, 10770 N. 46th Street, Suite C-200, Tampa, FL 33617. Applications must be received by the application deadline. Applications must arrive as a complete package. Materials arriving separately
Mr. Jeffery L. Quarles, Director, VA Homeless Providers GPD Program, Department of Veterans Affairs, 10770 N. 46th Street, Suite C-200, Tampa, FL 33617; (toll-free) 1-(877) 332-0334.
This NOFA announces the availability of FY 2014 funds to renew assistance provided under VA's Homeless Providers GPD Program for the 25 FY 2013 operational GPD Special Need recipients and their collaborative VA partners (as applicable). Eligible applicants may obtain grant assistance to cover additional operational costs that would not otherwise be incurred but for the fact that the recipient is providing supportive housing beds and services for the following special needs homeless Veteran populations:
(1) Women;
(2) Frail elderly;
(3) Terminally ill;
(4) Chronically mentally ill; or
(5) Individuals who have care of minor dependents.
Definitions of these populations are contained in 38 CFR 61.1 Definitions. Eligible applicants should review these definitions to ensure their proposed populations meet the specific requirements.
VA is pleased to issue this NOFA for the Homeless Providers GPD Program as a part of the effort to end homelessness among our Nation's Veterans. Funding
(1) Ensure transportation for women, especially for health care and educational needs; and
(2) Address safety and security issues including segregation from other program participants if deemed appropriate.
(1) Ensure the safety of the residents in the facility to include preventing harm and exploitation;
(2) Ensure opportunities to keep residents mentally and physically agile to the fullest extent through the incorporation of structured activities, physical activity, and plans for social engagement within the program and in the community;
(3) Provide opportunities for participants to address life transitional issues and separation and/or loss issues;
(4) Provide access to assistance devices such as walkers, grippers, or other devices necessary for optimal functioning;
(5) Ensure adequate supervision, including supervision of medication and monitoring of medication compliance; and
(6) Provide opportunities for participants either directly or through referral for other services particularly relevant for the frail elderly, including services or programs addressing emotional, social, spiritual, and generative needs.
(1) Help participants address life-transition and life-end issues;
(2) Ensure that participants are afforded timely access to hospice services;
(3) Provide opportunities for participants to engage in “tasks of dying,” or activities of “getting things in order” or other therapeutic actions that help resolve end of life issues and enable transition and closure;
(4) Ensure adequate supervision, including supervision of medication and monitoring of medication compliance; and
(5) Provide opportunities for participants, either directly or through referral, for other services that are particularly relevant for the terminally ill, such as legal counsel and pain management.
(1) Help participants join in and engage with the community;
(2) Facilitate reintegration with the community and provide services that may optimize reintegration such as life-skills education, recreational activities, and follow up case management;
(3) Ensure that participants have opportunities and services for re-establishing relationships with family;
(4) Ensure adequate supervision, including supervision of medication and monitoring of medication compliance; and
(5) Provide opportunities for participants, either directly or through referral, to obtain other services particularly relevant for a chronically mentally ill population, such as vocational development, benefits management, fiduciary or money management services, medication compliance, and medication education.
(1) Ensure transportation for individuals who have care of minor dependents, and their children, especially for health care and educational needs;
(2) Provide directly or offer referrals for adequate and safe child care;
(3) Ensure children's health care needs are met, especially age-appropriate wellness visits and immunizations; and
(4) Address safety and security issues, including segregation from other program participants if deemed appropriate.
1. 100 percent of the daily cost of care estimated by the special need recipient for furnishing services to homeless Veterans with special need that the special need recipient certifies to be correct, minus any other sources of income; or
2. Two times the current VA State Home Program per diem rate for domiciliary care.
Special need awards are subject to: funds availability; the recipient meeting the performance goals as stated in the grant application; statutory and regulatory requirements; and annual inspections.
Applicants should ensure their funding requests and operational costs are based on the 12-month period above and should be approximately in line with prior year expenditures. Requests cannot exceed the amount obligated under the FY 2013 award.
Based on GPD funding availability, approximately, $3.5 million is expected to be made available over the specified time (internally) for the current VA collaborative partners
The goal is, to the maximum extent possible, to ensure a continuation of Special Need services to homeless Veterans.
If the applicant currently has a collaborative project and your VA partner no longer wishes to continue, your agency will be ineligible for an award under this NOFA.
Applicants should ensure that they include all required documents in their application and carefully follow the format described below. Submission of an incorrect, incomplete, or incorrectly formatted application package will result in the application being rejected at the beginning of the process.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Applicants with questions regarding the funding from previous Special Need awards should contact the GPD Program Office prior to application for renewal funding. Selections will be made based on criteria described in the FY 2009 application and additional information as specified in this NOFA.
Applicants who are selected will be notified of any further additional information needed to confirm or clarify information provided in the application. Applicants will then be notified of the deadline to submit such information. If an applicant is unable to meet any conditions for grant award within the specified time frame, VA reserves the right to not award funds and to use the funds available for other Special Need applicants.
In the interest of fairness to all competing applicants, this deadline is firm as to date and hour, and VA will treat any application that is received after the deadline as ineligible for consideration. Applicants should take this firm deadline into account and make early submission of their material to avoid any risk of loss of eligibility as a result of unanticipated delays or other delivery-related problems.
For applications physically delivered,(.e.g., in person, or via United States Postal Service, FedEx, United Parcel Service, or any other type of courier), the VA GPD Program Office staff will accept the application and date stamp it immediately at the time of arrival. This is the date and time that will determine if the deadline is met for those types of delivery. DO NOT fax or email the application as it will be treated as ineligible for consideration.
Special Need funding may not be used for capital improvements or to purchase vans or real property. However, the leasing of vans or real property may be acceptable. Questions regarding acceptability should be directed to VA's National GPD Program Office at the number listed in Contact Information. Applicants may not receive Special Need funding to replace funds provided by any Federal, state or local government agency or program to assist homeless persons.
A full copy of the regulations governing the GPD Program is available at the GPD Web site at
Awardees will be required to support their request for payments with adequate fiscal documentation as to project expenses and, in the case of per diem payments, income and expenses.
All awardees that are selected in response to
Each program receiving special need funding will have a liaison appointed from a nearby VA medical facility to
Monitoring will include at a minimum, a quarterly review of each per diem program's progress toward meeting performance goals, including the applicant's internal goals and objectives in helping Veterans attain housing stability, adequate income support, and self-sufficiency as identified in each per diem program's original application. Monitoring will also include a review of the agency's income and expenses as they relate to this project to ensure payment is accurate.
Each funded program will participate in VA's national program monitoring and evaluation as these monitoring procedures will be used to determine successful accomplishment of these housing outcomes for each per diem-funded program.
Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act of 2001, 'Public Law 107-95, section 5, codified as amended by Public Law 112-154, at 38 U.S.C. 2011, 2012, 2013, 2061, and in regulation at 38 CFR part 61.
By Direction of the Secretary.