Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Rural Utilities Service
World Agricultural Outlook Board
Economic Development Administration
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
Office of the Secretary and Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is revising its procedures for managing classified national security information. DHS is updating its regulations to incorporate new and revised procedures pursuant to Executive Order 13526, “Classified National Security Information.” Further, DHS is delegating to the Chief Security Officer of DHS the responsibility of serving as the “Senior Agency Official” pursuant to Executive Order 13526. The Chief Security Officer acted in this capacity under the predecessor Executive Order as well. Finally, DHS is also removing outdated regulations dealing with classified national security information at 44 CFR part 8.
This final rule is effective July 30, 2014.
John Steele, Chief Policy Advisor, Office of the Chief Security Officer, Department of Homeland Security, (202) 447-0833 (not a toll-free number); Scott Ackiss, Chief, Administrative Security Division, Office of the Chief Security Officer, Department of Homeland Security, (202) 447-5341 (not a toll-free number).
On December 29, 2009, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13526, prescribing a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism. 75 FR 707 (Jan. 5, 2010). E.O. 13526 replaced Executive Order 12958, 60 FR 19825 (Apr. 20, 1995), which had last been amended by E.O. 13292, 68 FR 15315 (Mar. 28, 2003).
DHS is amending its regulations to implement the revised requirements of E.O. 13526. The relevant changes relate to classification, safeguarding, and declassification of national security information. This rule is consistent with similar rules of other Executive Branch agencies relating to the classification, safeguarding, and declassification of classified national security information.
DHS is issuing this rule as a final rule without prior notice of proposed rulemaking because the procedures implemented under this final rule are largely mandated by Executive Order. Moreover, this rule, like similar rules of other Executive Branch agencies, is a rule of agency management, interpretation, or procedure. Such rules are exempt from prior notice and public comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), (b)(A). Consistent with its predecessor final rule implementing Executive Orders 12958 and 13292, see 70 FR 61211 (Oct. 21, 2005), DHS has concluded that prior notice and opportunity for comment are therefore unnecessary. This rule is therefore effective upon publication.
E.O. 13526 requires that DHS make a number of technical changes to its regulations, including, for instance, removing references to outdated executive orders. In the interest of brevity, DHS is including in the discussion below only the most significant changes made in the regulations.
This final rule establishes the procedures necessary for DHS to fulfill its obligations under E.O. 13526, “Classified National Security Information.” This final rule does not address the Department's obligations under Executive Orders 13311,
Revised subpart A continues to delegate responsibility for administration of the DHS classification management program to the Chief Security Officer. Just as the Chief Security Officer acted in the capacity of “Senior Agency Official” under E.O. 12958, as amended, the Chief Security Officer will act as the Senior Agency Official under E.O. 13526. Similarly, subpart A continues to require components to designate a security officer/security liaison to implement and oversee the program at each component. Subpart A also sets forth potential administrative sanctions that may be imposed pursuant to E.O. 13526. See revised section 7.10(b)(11), 7.12(b). These provisions, which mirror provisions in the 2005 rule, are independent of criminal penalties that the Department of Justice may prosecute.
DHS is amending Subpart A to explicitly include in the delegation to the Chief Security Officer (1) responsibility for implementing and managing mandatory training for officials who hold original classification authority or perform derivative classification actions, and suspending classification authority of individuals who fail to attend such training, revised section 7.10(c)(3); (2) responsibility for reviewing and correcting classification decisions, revised section 7.10(c)(4); (3) authority to establish a secure capability to receive information, allegations, or complaints regarding over-classification or incorrect classification, revised section 7.10(c)(10); (4) authority to establish and maintain a means to appoint, track, and train Department officials who do or will perform original and derivative classification actions, revised section 7.10(e); and (5) authority to implement, manage, and oversee a program providing access to and safeguarding classified information
DHS is also making technical amendments to other portions of sections 7.11 and 7.12, consistent with the Executive Order.
Revised subpart B continues to provide DHS policy on the classification and declassification of national security information, including authority for the release of classified information to uncleared persons in an emergency.
Revised subpart B implements new standards for granting officials original classification authority, consistent with E.O. 13526. In revised section 7.20(a) and (b), DHS provides, consistent with section 1.3(c) of the Executive Order and predecessor executive orders, that neither the Secretary nor the Chief Security Officer may delegate original classification authority to any official who lacks a demonstrable and continuing need to exercise such authority.
Consistent with sections 1.3(d) and 2.1(d) of E.O. 13526, and as noted above in connection with the Chief Security Officer's authority under revised subpart A, revised subpart B implements new training requirements for original and derivative classifiers. Under revised section 7.20(c), DHS specifically requires officials delegated original classification authority to attend mandatory classification training within 60 days of the date of the delegation, and annually thereafter. Under revised section 7.26(d), those who perform derivative classification actions must attend mandatory derivative classification training before performing any derivative classification, and once every two years thereafter. The Chief Security Officer will suspend the classification authority of an official who does not complete the mandatory training, although the Chief Security Officer—or for cases involving the Inspector General, the Secretary or Deputy Secretary—may waive the suspension in exigent circumstances.
Changes under this subpart also implement the Executive Order's standards relating to whether and to what level DHS will classify information. In revised section 7.21(a)(4), DHS incorporates the explicit requirement in section 1.4 of E.O. 13526, which provides that information shall not be considered for classification unless,
Changes to this subpart also implement new standards under which DHS will reclassify information. In revised section 7.21(g), the rule provides, consistent with section 1.7(c) of E.O. 13526, that information may not be reclassified after it has been declassified and released to the public under proper authority, unless,
This rule also includes a number of new provisions relating to declassification. In revised section 7.20(e), DHS clarifies, consistent with section 3.1(b) of E.O. 13526, which officials may exercise declassification authority. Revised section 7.29 addresses DHS's role vis-à-vis the National Declassification Center, which the President established under section 3.7 of the Executive Order.
In new section 7.32 (which in many respects duplicates former section 7.31), consistent with section 3.5(g) of E.O. 13526, DHS now clarifies the mandatory declassification review process by defining who may request declassification review under the Executive Order. Proper requesters do not include foreign government entities or any representative thereof. New section 7.32 also clarifies that in general, DHS will deny requests for declassification review of overly broad categories of information, entire file series, and other similarly non-specific target information. Consistent with section 3.5(g) of E.O. 13526, new section 7.32 also now provides that mandatory declassification review does not apply to documents required to be submitted for prepublication review or other administrative process pursuant to an approved non-disclosure agreement. This would include, for instance, memoirs by current or former DHS employees, if a non-disclosure agreement applies.
DHS notes that the public's ability to request declassification of information under this rule is fully consistent with declassification provisions cited in EO 13526.
Finally, DHS is also making technical amendments to other portions of subpart B not referenced in this preamble, consistent with the Executive Order.
In this action, DHS is also removing outdated regulations dealing with the same subject matter at 44 CFR part 8.
DHS finds good cause to issue this rule without advance notice and public comment because such procedures are unnecessary. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). As noted above, this rulemaking incorporates into existing DHS regulations the provisions of E.O. 13526 without significant change. Further, this rule generally parallels the procedures currently used by other agencies to fulfill their obligations under Executive Order 13526.
Moreover, although this rulemaking includes certain delegations of authority not mandated by Executive Order 13526—such as, for instance, the delegation to the DHS Chief Security Officer in particular—such provisions plainly involve matters of internal DHS management and organization, i.e., DHS internal procedures for the classification and handling of classified national security information.
For the same reasons, the Department has determined that this final rule should be issued without a delayed effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required for this final rule because DHS is not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this matter.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the 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 designated a “significant regulatory action” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule incorporates into existing DHS regulations the requirements of Executive Order 13526 and also certain internal delegations of authority not mandated by Executive Order 13526. The rule's qualitative benefits include additional clarity for the public and DHS personnel with respect to Executive Order 13526's effect on DHS regulations. This rule imposes no additional costs on the public or the government.
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, DHS has determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
DHS has reviewed this action under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, which guides the Department in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This final rule has been reviewed by the Information Security Oversight Office of the National Archives and Records Administration pursuant to Executive Order 13526.
Classified information, Organization, functions, and authority delegations.
Classified information.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, DHS amends 6 CFR chapter I, part 7, and 44 CFR chapter I, part 8, as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; Pub. L. 107-296; E.O. 13526; 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 333; E.O. 13142, 64 FR 66089, 3 CFR, 1999 Comp., p. 236; 32 CFR part 2001.
The purpose of this part is to ensure that information within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) relating to the national security is classified, safeguarded, and declassified pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order 13526, and implementing directives from the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
(a) This part applies to all employees, detailees, and non-contractor personnel inside and outside the Executive Branch who are granted access to classified information by the DHS, in accordance with the standards in Executive Order 13526, and its implementing directives, and Executive Order 13549, “Classified National Security Information Program for State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities,” and its implementing directives.
(b) This part does not apply to contractors, grantees and other
(c) This part is independent of and does not affect any classification procedures or requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011
(d) This part does not, and is not intended to, create any right to judicial review, or any other right or benefit or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person. This part creates limited rights to administrative review of decisions. This part does not, and is not intended to, create any right to judicial review of administrative action.
The terms defined or used in Executive Order 13526, and the implementing directives in 32 CFR part 2001 and 2004 are applicable to this part.
(a) The DHS Chief Security Officer (hereafter “Chief Security Officer”) is designated as the Senior Agency Official as required by section 5.4(d) of Executive Order 13526, and, except as specifically provided elsewhere in this part, is authorized to administer the DHS Classified National Security Information program pursuant to Executive Order 13526.
(b) To the extent that 32 CFR part 2001 refers to the agency head or “designee,” the Chief Security Officer is such designee unless determined otherwise by the Secretary. The Chief Security Officer may further delegate the associated authorities.
(c) The Chief Security Officer shall, among other actions:
(1) Oversee and administer the DHS's program established under Executive Order 13526;
(2) Promulgate implementing regulations;
(3) Establish and maintain DHS-wide security education and training programs, to include implementation and management of mandatory training for DHS officials who have been delegated original classification authority and those who perform derivative classification actions and suspension of such authority for failure to attend such training;
(4) Establish and maintain an ongoing self-inspection program that shall include regularly reviewing representative samples of DHS's original and derivative classification actions, correcting instances of misclassification, and reporting annually to the Director of ISOO on the DHS self-inspection program;
(5) Establish procedures to prevent unnecessary access to classified information, including procedures that:
(i) Require that a need for access to classified information is established before initiating administrative procedures to grant access; and
(ii) Ensure that the number of persons granted access to classified information is limited to the minimum necessary for operational and security requirements and needs;
(6) Develop special contingency plans for the safeguarding of classified information used in or near hostile or potentially hostile areas;
(7) Coordinate with the DHS Chief Human Capital Officer, as appropriate, to ensure that the performance contract or other system used to rate personnel performance includes the management of classified information as a critical element or item to be evaluated in the rating of:
(i) Original classification authorities;
(ii) Security managers or security specialists; and
(iii) All other personnel whose duties significantly involve the creation or handling of classified information, including persons who apply derivative classification markings;
(8) Account for the costs associated with implementing this part and report the cost to the Director of ISOO;
(9) Assign in a prompt manner personnel to respond to any request, appeal, challenge, complaint, or suggestion concerning Executive Order 13526, that pertains to classified information that originated in a DHS component that no longer exists and for which there is no clear successor in function;
(10) Establish a secure capability to receive information, allegations, or complaints regarding over-classification or incorrect classification and to provide a ready source for guidance on proper classification;
(11) Report violations, take corrective measures and assess appropriate sanctions as warranted, in accordance with Executive Order 13526;
(12) Oversee DHS creation and participation in special access programs authorized under Executive Order 13526;
(13) Direct and administer DHS's personnel security program in accordance with Executive Order 12968 and other applicable law;
(14) Direct and administer DHS implementation and compliance with the National Industrial Security Program in accordance with Executive Order 12829 and other applicable guidance; and
(15) Perform any other duties as the Secretary may designate.
(d) The Chief Security Officer shall maintain a current list of all officials authorized pursuant to this part to originally classify or declassify documents.
(e) The Chief Security Officer shall establish and maintain a means for appointing, tracking, and training DHS officials who do or will perform original and derivative classification actions.
(f) The Chief Security Officer shall administer a program for the implementation, management, and oversight of access to and safeguarding of classified information provided to state, local, tribal, and private sector personnel pursuant to Executive Order 13549, “Classified National Security Information Program for State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities,” and its implementing directives.
(g) Nothing in this part will be interpreted to abrogate or affect the responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence under the National Security Act of 1947, Public Law 235 (1947), as amended, and E.O. 12333, United States Intelligence Activities (1981), as amended, or any responsibilities of the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis conferred by presidential or intelligence community directive implicating those authorities, insofar as those authorities concern classified sources, methods, and activities, classified national intelligence, or sensitive compartmented information and are executed consistent with delegations or designations of authority issued pursuant to the statutory authority of the Secretary.
Each DHS component shall appoint a security officer or security liaison to implement this part. The security officer/security liaison shall:
(a) Implement, observe, and enforce security regulations or procedures within their component with respect to the classification, declassification, safeguarding, handling, and storage of classified national security information;
(b) Report violations of the provisions of this part to the Chief Security Officer committed by employees of their component, as required by implementing directives;
(c) Ensure that employees of their component attend mandatory security education and training, as required by the DHS classified information security procedures, to include those component officials delegated the authority to classify information originally and those who perform derivative classification actions;
(d) Continuously review the requirements for personnel access to classified information as a part of the continuous need-to-know evaluation, and initiate action to administratively withdraw or reduce the level of access authorized, as appropriate; and
(e) Cooperate fully with any request from the Chief Security Officer for assistance in the implementation of this part.
(a) Any person who suspects or has knowledge of a violation of this part, including the known or suspected loss or compromise of classified information, shall promptly report such violations or possible violations, pursuant to requirements set forth in DHS directives.
(b) DHS employees and detailees may be reprimanded, suspended without pay, terminated from classification authority, suspended from or denied access to classified information, or subject to other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and DHS regulations or directives if they:
(1) Knowingly, willfully, or negligently disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under Executive Order 13526, or its predecessor orders;
(2) Knowingly, willfully, or negligently classify or continue the classification of information in violation of Executive Order 13526, or its implementing directives; or
(3) Knowingly, willfully, or negligently create or continue a special access program contrary to the requirements of Executive Order 13526; or,
(4) Knowingly, willfully, or negligently violate any other provision of Executive Order 13526, or DHS implementing directives, or;
(5) Knowingly, willfully, or negligently grant eligibility for, or allow access to, classified information in violation of Executive Order 13526, or its implementing directives, this part, or DHS implementing directives promulgated by the Chief Security Officer.
(a) Any DHS official or organization, except for the Office of Inspector General in matters involving the Office of Inspector General only, receiving an order or subpoena from a federal or state court, or an administrative subpoena from a federal agency, to produce classified information (see 6 CFR 5.41 through 5.49), required to submit classified information for official DHS litigation purposes, or receiving classified information from another organization for production of such in litigation, shall notify the Office of the General Counsel, unless the demand for production is made by the Office of the General Counsel, and immediately determine from the agency originating the classified information whether the information can be declassified. If declassification is not possible, DHS representatives will take appropriate action to protect such information, pursuant to the provisions of this section.
(b) If a determination is made under paragraph (a) of this section to produce classified information in a judicial proceeding in any manner, the DHS General Counsel attorney, or the Office of Inspector General attorney, if the matter involves the Office of Inspector General only, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, shall take appropriate steps to protect classified information in judicial proceedings and retrieve the information when the information is no longer required in such judicial proceedings, in accordance with the Department of Justice procedures, and in Federal criminal cases, pursuant to the requirements of Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), Public Law 96-456, 94 Stat. 2025, (18 U.S.C. App.), and the “Security Procedures Established Pursuant to Public Law 96-456, 94 Stat. 2025, by the Chief Justice of the United States for the Protection of Classified Information,” and other applicable authorities.
(a) Top Secret original classification authority may only be exercised by the Secretary and by officials with a demonstrable and continuing need to exercise such authority and to whom such authority is delegated in writing by the Secretary. The Chief Security Officer, as the Senior Agency Official, is delegated authority to originally classify information up to and including Top Secret. No official who is delegated Top Secret original classification authority by the Secretary may further delegate such authority.
(b) The Chief Security Officer may delegate Secret and Confidential original classification authority to other officials with a demonstrable and continuing need to exercise such authority. No official who is delegated original classification authority by the Secretary or the Chief Security Officer may further delegate such authority.
(c) Persons who are delegated original classification authority shall attend mandatory classification training within 60 days of the delegation, and annually thereafter. Persons who fail to attend mandatory training shall have such authority suspended until such time as the training occurs.
(1) Except for suspensions of the Inspector General's classification authority, the Chief Security Officer may waive a suspension of authority for no longer than 60 days following the due date of the training when unavoidable circumstances exist that prevent the person from attending the training.
(2) For cases involving suspension of the Inspector General's classification authority under paragraph (c) of this section, only the Secretary or Deputy Secretary may waive such a suspension.
(d) Officials authorized to classify information at a specified level are also authorized to classify information at a lower level. In the absence of an official authorized to exercise classification authority, the person designated to act in lieu of such official may exercise the official's classification authority.
(e) Declassification authority may be exercised by the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority; the originator's current successor in function, if that individual has original classification authority; a supervisory official of either the originator or his or her successor in function, if the supervisory official has original classification authority; or officials delegated declassification authority by the Secretary or the Chief Security Officer.
(a) Information may be originally classified only if all of the following standards are met:
(1) An original classification authority is classifying the information;
(2) The information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;
(3) The information falls within one or more of the categories of information
(4) The original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to cause identifiable and describable damage to the national security.
(b) Information shall be classified as Top Secret, Secret, or Confidential in accordance with and in compliance with the standards and criteria in Executive Order 13526. No other terms shall be used to identify United States classified information except as otherwise provided by statute.
(c) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information it shall not be classified. If classification is warranted but there is significant doubt about the appropriate level of classification it shall be classified at the lower level.
(d) Original classification decisions made by a DHS original classification authority shall be incorporated into a security classification guide in a timely manner but no later than one year from the date of the original decision. Such decisions shall be reported to the Office of the Chief Security Officer, Administrative Security Division, within thirty days following the original classification decision.
(e) All DHS security classification guides shall be coordinated through and receive the concurrence of the Office of the Chief Security Officer, Administrative Security Division, prior to approval and publication by an original classification authority.
(f) Information shall not be classified in order to:
(1) Conceal inefficiency, violations of law, or administrative error;
(2) Prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
(3) Restrain competition;
(4) Prevent or delay release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security.
(g) Information may not be reclassified after it has been declassified and released to the public under proper authority unless:
(1) The reclassification is approved in writing by the Secretary based on a document-by-document determination that the reclassification of the information is required to prevent significant and demonstrable damage to the national security;
(2) The reclassification of the information meets the standards and criteria for classification pursuant to Executive Order 13526;
(3) The information may be reasonably recovered without bringing undue attention to the information; and
(4) The reclassification action is reported promptly to the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (National Security Advisor) and the Director of ISOO.
(5) For documents in the physical and legal custody of the National Archives and Records Administration that have previously been made available for public use and determined to warrant reclassification per paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this section, the Secretary shall notify the Archivist of the United States, who shall suspend public access pending approval by the Director of ISOO. Any such decision made by the Director of ISOO may be appealed by the Secretary to the President through the National Security Advisor.
(h) Information that has not previously been disclosed to the public under proper authority may be classified or reclassified after DHS has received a request for it under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2204(c)(1), the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), or the mandatory review provisions of Executive Order 13526, section 3.5. When it is necessary to classify or reclassify such information, it shall be done so on a document-by-document basis with the personal participation of and under the direction of the Secretary or Deputy Secretary.
(a) Whenever persons who do not have original classification authority originate or develop information that they believe requires immediate classification and safeguarding, and no authorized original classifier is available, that person shall:
(1) Safeguard the information in a manner appropriate for the classification level they believe it to be;
(2) Apply the appropriate overall classification markings; and
(3) Within five working days, securely transmit the information to the organization that has appropriate subject matter interest and original classification authority.
(b) When it is not clear which component would be the appropriate original classifier, the information shall be sent to the Office of the Chief Security Officer, Administrative Security Division, to determine the appropriate organization.
(c) The applicable original classification authority shall decide within 30 days of receipt whether the information warrants classification pursuant to Executive Order 13526 and shall render such decision in writing.
(a) The DHS Undersecretary for Management has delegated to certain DHS employees the authority to disclose classified information to an individual or individuals not otherwise eligible for access in emergency situations when there is an imminent threat to life or in defense of the homeland.
(b) In exercising this authority, the delegees shall adhere to the following conditions:
(1) Limit the amount of classified information disclosed to a minimum to achieve the intended purpose;
(2) Limit the number of individuals who receive it to only those persons with a specific need-to-know;
(3) Transmit the classified information through approved communication channels by the most secure and expeditious method possible, or by other means deemed necessary in exigent circumstances;
(4) Provide instructions about what specific information is classified and how it should be safeguarded. Physical custody of classified information must remain with an authorized Federal Government entity, in all but the most extraordinary circumstances as determined by the delegated official;
(5) Provide appropriate briefings to the recipients on their responsibilities not to disclose the information and obtain from the recipients a signed DHS Emergency Release of Classified Information Non-disclosure Form. In emergency situations requiring immediate verbal release of information, the signed nondisclosure agreement memorializing the briefing may be received after the emergency abates;
(6) Within 72 hours of the disclosure of classified information, or the earliest opportunity that the emergency permits, but no later than 7 days after the release, the disclosing authority must notify the DHS Office of the Chief Security Officer, Administrative Security Division, and the originating agency of the information disclosed. A copy of the signed nondisclosure agreements should be forwarded with the notification, or as soon thereafter as practical.
(7) Release of information pursuant to this authority does not constitute declassification of the information.
(8) Authority to disclose classified information under the above conditions may not be further delegated.
(a) At the time of original classification, original classification
(b) The original classification authority shall attempt to establish a specific date or event that is not more than 10 years from the date of origination in which the information will be automatically declassified. If the original classification authority cannot determine an earlier specific date or event it shall be marked for automatic declassification 10 years from the date of origination.
(c) If the original classification authority determines that the sensitivity of the information requires classification beyond 10 years, it may be marked for automatic declassification for up to 25 years from the date of the original classification decision.
(d) Original classification authorities do not have the authority to classify or retain the classification of information beyond 25 years from the date of origination. The only exceptions to this rule are information that would clearly and demonstrably be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential human source or human intelligence source, or, key design concepts of weapons of mass destruction. In these instances, the information shall be marked for declassification based on implementing directives issued pursuant to Executive Order 13526. In all other instances, classification beyond 25 years shall only be authorized in accordance with § 7.28 and Executive Order 13526.
(a) Classified information, in all forms, must be marked in a manner that is immediately apparent pursuant to the standards set forth in section 1.6 of Executive Order 13526; 32 CFR part 2001, subpart B; and internal DHS guidance approved and distributed by the Office of the Chief Security Officer.
(b) Foreign government information shall retain its original classification markings or be assigned a U.S. classification that provides a degree of protection at least equivalent to that required by the entity that furnished the information.
(c) Information assigned a level of classification under predecessor Executive Orders shall remain classified at that level of classification, except as otherwise provided herein, i.e., the information is reclassified or declassified.
(a) Derivative classification is defined as the incorporating, paraphrasing, restating, or generating in a new form information that is already classified, and marking the newly developed material consistent with the classification markings that apply to the source information. Information is also derivatively classified when classification is based on instructions provided in a security classification guide.
(b) Persons need not possess original classification authority to derivatively classify information based on source documents or classification guides.
(c) Persons who perform derivative classification actions shall be designated as authorized derivative classifiers as specified in directives published by the Office of the Chief Security Officer.
(d) Persons who are designated as authorized derivative classifiers shall attend mandatory classification training before performing derivative classification actions, and once every two years thereafter. Persons who fail to attend mandatory training shall have such authority suspended until such time as the training occurs.
(1) Except for suspensions of the Office of Inspector General's classification authority, the Chief Security Officer may waive the suspension of authority for no longer than 60 days following the due date of the training when unavoidable circumstances exist that prevent the person from attending the training.
(2) For cases involving suspension of the Office of Inspector General's classification authority under paragraph (d) of this section, only the Secretary or Deputy Secretary may waive such a suspension.
(e) Persons who apply derivative classification markings shall observe original classification decisions and carry forward to any newly created documents the pertinent classification markings.
(f) Information classified derivatively from other classified information shall be classified and marked in accordance with the standards set forth in sections 2.1 and 2.2 of Executive Order 13526, 32 CFR part 2001, and internal DHS guidance provided by the Office of the Chief Security Officer.
(a) Classified information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification. Declassification and downgrading is governed by part 3 of Executive Order 13526, implementing ISOO directives at 32 CFR part 2001, subpart C, and applicable internal DHS direction provided by the Office of the Chief Security Officer.
(b) Information shall be declassified or downgraded by the official who authorized the original classification if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority, the originator's successor if that position has original classification authority, or a supervisory official of either if that position has original classification authority, or, by officials delegated such authority in writing by the Secretary or the Chief Security Officer, or, pursuant to section 3.1.(e) of Executive Order 13526, the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office.
(c) It is presumed that information that continues to meet the classification requirements under Executive Order 13526 requires continued protection. In some exceptional cases during declassification reviews, the need to protect classified information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified. If it appears that the public interest in disclosure of the information may outweigh the need to protect the information, the declassification reviewing official shall refer the information with a recommendation for decision to the Chief Security Officer. The Chief Security Officer shall review the information and after consulting with the applicable original classification authority and other components and agencies with equities, make a recommendation to the Secretary on whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure. The Secretary shall decide whether to declassify the information. The decision of the Secretary shall be final. This provision does not amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification or create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.
(d) Each component shall develop schedules for declassification of records in the National Archives.
(a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section and paragraphs 3.3(b)-(d) and (g)-(j) of Executive Order 13526, all classified information contained in records that are more than 25 years old that have been determined to have permanent historical value shall be declassified automatically on December 31st of the year that is 25 years from the date of origin.
(b) At least one year before information is declassified automatically under this section, the Chief Security Officer shall notify the ISOO of any specific information that
(1) A description of the information;
(2) An explanation of why the information is exempt from automatic declassification and must remain classified for a longer period of time; and
(3) A specific date or event for declassification of the information whenever the information exempted does not identify a confidential human source or human intelligence source, or, key design concepts of weapons of mass destruction.
(c) Proposed exemptions under this section shall be forwarded to the Chief Security Officer. When the Chief Security Officer determines the exemption request is consistent with this section, he or she will submit the exemption request to the Executive Secretary of the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP) for approval.
(d) Declassification guides that narrowly and precisely define exempted information may be used to exempt information from automatic declassification. Declassification guides must include the exemption notification information detailed in paragraph (b) of this section, and be approved pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. The creation of declassification guides to cite proposed or ISCAP-approved DHS exemptions shall be coordinated through and processed by the Office of the Chief Security Officer, Administrative Security Division.
(a) The Chief Security Officer and applicable components will support the NARA, National Declassification Center (NDC), which was established to streamline declassification processes, facilitate quality-assurance measures, and implement standardized training regarding the declassification of records determined to have permanent historical value. The Chief Security Officer will assign DHS personnel on an as-needed basis to address declassification matters and priorities containing DHS equities.
(b) The Office of the Chief Security Officer shall provide the NDC with all DHS classification and declassification guides that include ISCAP-approved exemptions from automatic declassification.
(c) The Chief Security Officer, or his designee, shall oversee DHS-wide support to the NDC, including representing DHS in consultations with the NDC Director.
The original classification authority, to the greatest extent possible, shall declassify classified information contained in records determined to have permanent historical value under 44 U.S.C. 2107 before they are accessioned into the National Archives.
(a) Authorized holders of information classified by DHS or any other agency who, in good faith, believe that specific information is improperly or unnecessarily classified are encouraged and expected to challenge the classification status of that information pursuant to section 1.8 of Executive Order 13526. Authorized holders may submit classification challenges in writing to the original classification authority with jurisdiction over the information in question. If an original classification authority cannot be determined, the challenge shall be submitted to the Office of the Chief Security Officer, Administrative Security Division. The challenge need not be more specific than a question as to why the information is or is not classified, or is classified at a certain level.
(b) If anonymity of the challenger is requested, the challenger may submit the challenge to the Office of the Chief Security Officer, Administrative Security Division. The Administrative Security Division will act as an agent for the challenger and the identity of the challenger will be redacted.
(c) The original classification authority shall no later than 60 days from receipt of the challenge, provide a written response to the submitter. The original classification authority may classify or declassify the information subject to the challenge and, if applicable, state specific reasons why the original classification determination was proper. If the original classification authority is not able to respond within 60 days, he or she shall inform the individual who filed the challenge in writing of that fact, and the anticipated determination date.
(d) The individual challenging the classification will be notified of the determination made by the original classification authority and that the individual may appeal this determination to the Chief Security Officer, or in cases involving appeals by Office of Inspector General employees, the Secretary or Deputy Secretary. Upon receipt of such appeals, the Chief Security Officer, or in cases involving appeals by Office of Inspector General employees, the Secretary or Deputy Secretary, shall convene a DHS Classification Appeals Panel (DHS/CAP). The DHS/CAP shall, at a minimum, consist of representatives from the Office of the Chief Security Officer, the Office of General Counsel, and a representative from the component having jurisdiction over the information. Additional members may be added as determined by the Chief Security Officer. The DHS/CAP shall be chaired by the Chief Security Officer.
(e) If the requester files an appeal through the DHS/CAP, and the appeal is denied, the requester shall be notified of the right to appeal the denial to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP) pursuant to section 5.3 of Executive Order 13526, and the rules issued by the ISCAP pursuant to section 5.3 of Executive Order 13526.
(f) Any individual who challenges a classification and believes that any action has been taken against him or her in retaliation or retribution because of that challenge may report the facts to the Office of Inspector General via its Hotline or Web site, or other appropriate office.
(g) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a person from informally challenging the classified status of information directly to the original classification authority.
(h) Classification challenge provisions are not applicable to documents required to be submitted for prepublication review or other administrative process pursuant to an approved non-disclosure agreement.
(i) Requests for review of classified material for declassification by persons other than authorized holders are governed by § 7.32.
(a) Any individual, as “individual” is defined by 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(2) (with the exception of a foreign government entity or any representative thereof), may request that classified information be reviewed for declassification pursuant to the mandatory declassification review provisions of section 3.5 of Executive Order 13526. Such requests must be sent to the Departmental Disclosure Officer, Privacy Office, 245 Murray Lane SW., Building 410, Washington, DC 20528.
(b) The request must describe the document or material with enough specificity to allow it to be located by the component with a reasonable amount of effort. Components will generally consider deficient any requests for declassification review of, for instance, broad categories of
(1) When the description of the information in the request is deficient, the component shall solicit as much additional identifying information as possible from the requester.
(2) If the information or material requested cannot be obtained with a reasonable amount of effort, the component shall provide the requester, through the DHS Disclosure Officer, with written notification of the reasons why no action will be taken and of the requester's right to appeal.
(c) Requests for review of information that has been subjected to a declassification review request within the preceding two years shall not be processed. The DHS Disclosure Officer will notify the requester of such denial.
(d) Mandatory Declassification Review provisions are not applicable to documents required to be submitted for prepublication review or other administrative process pursuant to an approved non-disclosure agreement.
(e) Requests for information exempted from search or review under sections 701, 702, or 703 of the National Security Act of 1947, as added and amended (50 U.S.C. 431-433), or other provisions of law, shall not be processed. The DHS Disclosure Officer will notify the requester of such denial.
(f) If documents or material being reviewed for declassification under this section contain information that has been originally classified by another government agency, the reviewing authority shall notify the DHS Disclosure Officer. Unless the association of that organization with the requested information is itself classified, the DHS Disclosure Officer will then notify the requester of the referral.
(g) A DHS component may refuse to confirm or deny the existence, or non-existence, of requested information when its existence or non-existence, is properly classified.
(h) DHS components shall make a final determination on the request as soon as practicable but within one year from receipt. When information cannot be declassified in its entirety, components shall make reasonable efforts to redact those portions that still meet the standards for classification and release those declassified portions of the requested information that constitute a coherent segment.
(i) DHS components shall notify the DHS Disclosure Officer of the determination made in the processing of a mandatory review request. Such notification shall include the number of pages declassified in full; the number of pages declassified in part; and the number of pages where declassification was denied.
(j) The DHS Disclosure Officer shall maintain a record of all mandatory review actions for reporting in accordance with applicable Federal requirements.
(k) The mandatory declassification review system shall provide for administrative appeal in cases where the review results in the information remaining classified. The requester shall be notified of the results of the review and of the right to appeal the denial of declassification. To address such appeals, the DHS Disclosure Office shall convene a DHS Classification Appeals Panel (DHS/CAP). The DHS/CAP shall, at a minimum, consist of representatives from the Disclosure Office, the Office of the Chief Security Officer, the Office of General Counsel, and a representative from the component having jurisdiction over the information. Additional members may be added as determined by the DHS Disclosure Officer. The DHS/CAP shall be chaired by the DHS Disclosure Officer.
(l) If the requester files an appeal through the DHS/CAP, and the appeal is denied, the requester shall be notified of the right to appeal the denial to the ISCAP pursuant to section 5.3 of Executive Order 13526, and the rules issued by the ISCAP pursuant to section 5.3 of Executive Order 13526.
Office of the Secretary, Rural Utilities Service, World Agricultural Outlook Board, USDA.
Final rule.
This document revises the delegations of authority from the Secretary of Agriculture and general officers of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to reflect changes and additions to the delegations required by the Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79. Other additions, deletions, and changes are made as summarized below.
Effective July 30, 2014.
Adam J. Hermann, Office of the General Counsel, USDA, 3311-South Bldg., 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720-9425,
The Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) previously delegated authorities under the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Act), Public Law 113-79, in Secretary's Memorandum (SM) 1076-005 (March 6, 2014),
Title I of the Act provides several authorities that do not fit within existing delegations. The following provisions of title I are being delegated to the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services (FFAS) in 7 CFR 2.16 and the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) in 7 CFR
Additionally, the delegations to the Under Secretary for FFAS at 7 CFR 2.16(a)(1)(xxv) and the Administrator, FSA at 7 CFR 2.42(a)(45) are revised to clarify that Commodity Credit Corporation programs covered by those delegations include those that support production agriculture and producer income support, or that provide disaster assistance or the domestic marketing of commodities.
The Under Secretary for FFAS is redelegating part of his delegated authority in 7 CFR 2.16(a)(3)(xxxix) to the Administrator, FSA to enter into cooperative agreements under section 1472(b) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3318(b)) for the purpose of implementing section 1614(c)(3) of the Act. Section 1614(c)(3) provides funding for producer education, including the development of web-based decision aids and training.
Title II of the Act adds or revises several authorities that require new delegations of authority to the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) and the Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), as follows: Section 2301 (new Agricultural Conservation Easement Program); section 2401 (new Regional Conservation Partnership Program); section 2507 (revised Terminal Lakes assistance program); and section 2609 (revised wetlands mitigation banking program). 7 CFR 2.20 is amended to reflect the delegation of these authorities to the Under Secretary for NRE, and 7 CFR 2.61 is amended to reflect the delegation of these authorities to the Chief, NRCS.
In addition, section 2503 of the Act provides new funding to carry out the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program under section 1240R of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-5). This authority, previously delegated to the Under Secretary for FFAS and the Administrator, FSA, is transferred to the Under Secretary for NRE and the Chief, NRCS.
Section 2611 of the Act amends title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 to add new authorities regarding highly erodible land and wetland conservation for crop insurance. While the Under Secretaries for FFAS and NRE, the Administrator, FSA, and the Chief, NRCS, have existing delegations of authority that cover this part of the Food Security Act of 1985, a new delegation of authority is being added to 7 CFR 2.44 for the Administrator, Risk Management Agency (RMA) to carry out the functions pertaining to RMA.
Title IV of the Act provides several authorities related to nutrition that require new delegations of authority. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.19 are amended to reflect the delegation of these authorities to the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services (FNCS), and the delegations at 7 CFR 2.57 are amended to reflect the redelegation of these authorities to the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), as follows: section 4004(b) (demonstration project regarding the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations); section 4031 (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands pilot program regarding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)); section 4032 (annual State reporting on verification of SNAP participation); section 4033 (service of traditional foods in public facilities); and section 4214 (pilot project for canned, frozen, or dried fruits and vegetables as part of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act). Additionally, 7 CFR 2.19 is amended to reflect the delegation of authority to the Under Secretary for FNCS to establish a multiagency task force for the purpose of providing coordination and direction for commodity programs, as required by section 4205 of the Act, which amended the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994.
Section 4204 of the Act amends the authority of the Secretary in section 301 of the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990 to publish the “Dietary Guidelines for Americans.” A new, specific delegation is added to the Under Secretary for FNCS and Administrator, FNS, to administer section 301.
Section 4206 of the Act amends the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 to authorize a new Healthy Food Financing Initiative. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.17 and 2.48 are amended to reflect that the Under Secretary for Rural Development (RD) and Administrator of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) are delegated this authority.
Section 4208 of the Act establishes a food insecurity nutrition incentive grants program, and section 4209 authorizes a competitively awarded food and agriculture service learning grant program to increase knowledge of agriculture and improve the nutritional health of children. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.21 and 2.66 are amended to reflect that the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics (REE) and the Director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) are delegated these authorities.
Section 4213 seeks to encourage awareness and interest in the number and variety of pulse crop products available to schoolchildren. Section 4213(c) directs the Secretary to purchase eligible pulse crops and pulse crop products for use in the school lunch and school breakfast programs. 7 CFR 2.22 and 2.79 are amended to reflect the delegation of this purchasing authority to the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs (MRP) and the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), respectively. Sections 4213(d) and (e), which provide a one-time evaluation and reporting requirement, were delegated to the Under Secretary for FNCS and the Administrator, FNS, by SM 1076-005 and are not reflected in this rulemaking.
Title VI of the Act, at section 6205, amends the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to authorize a rural energy savings program. Section 6210 provides funding for certain pending loan and grant applications. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.17 and 2.47 are amended to reflect the delegation of these authorities to the Under Secretary for RD and the Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service, respectively.
Section 6017 of the Act moves the authority for the Intermediary Relending Program from the Food Security Act of 1985 to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. Section 6209 provides authorities relating to the collection and reporting of program metrics. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.17 and 2.48 are amended to reflect the delegation of these authorities to the Under Secretary for RD and the Administrator, RBS, respectively.
Title VII of the Act provides several new authorities involving research, extension, and related matters. The delegations of authority at 7 CFR 2.21 are amended to reflect the delegation of these authorities to the Under Secretary for REE, and the delegations at 7 CFR 2.65 and 2.66 are amended to reflect the delegation of these authorities to the Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the Director of NIFA, respectively, as follows: section 7104—a competitive grants program for the purpose of developing, implementing, and sustaining veterinary services (NIFA); section 7121—authority to enter into agreements with former USDA agricultural research facilities for the purpose of supporting ongoing research and information dissemination activities (ARS); section 7310—a forestry and forestry products research
Additionally, the delegation of section 1672 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925), as amended by the Act, to the Under Secretary for REE (7 CFR 2.21(a)(1)(lxxx)) is revised to clarify that the REE mission area is responsible for carrying out the pollinator authorities in section 1672(g) of that act, including the annual report, except for the honey bee surveillance authorities that are delegated to the Under Secretary for MRP (7 CFR 2.22(a)(2)(xli)). The delegation to the Director of NIFA (7 CFR 2.66(a)(42)) is revised to clarify that NIFA is responsible for carrying out the pollinator authorities in section 1672(g) of that act, except for the honey bee surveillance authorities that are delegated to the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) (7 CFR 2.80(a)(47)) and the pollinator health research activities that are delegated to the Administrator of ARS (7 CFR 2.65(a)(113)).
Section 7106 directs that the authority of the Secretary to make competitive grants to, or enter into cooperative agreements with, agricultural and food policy research centers under section 1419A of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3155) is to be carried out through the Office of the Chief Economist. This authority was previously delegated to the Under Secretary for REE and the Director of NIFA. A new delegation of authority for this program is added to 7 CFR 2.29 for the Chief Economist.
Title VIII of the Act adds two authorities to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) (16 U.S.C. 6501
Section 8206 of the Act provides authority (known as the “Good Neighbor Authority”) for the Secretary to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with a State to carry out forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services on NFS lands. Similar Good Neighbor Authority is provided in section 331 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 106-291; 114 Stat. 996), as amended and extended through fiscal year 2018 by section 417 of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76, div. G). The delegations at 7 CFR 2.20 and 2.60 are amended to reflect the delegation of this authority to the Under Secretary for NRE and Chief, Forest Service, respectively.
The following provisions of the Act are also delegated to the Under Secretary for NRE and Chief, Forest Service: Section 8302 (authorizes the Forest Service to utilize conservation-related program funds to establish an Agriculture Conservation Experience Services (ACES) Program to provide technical services for conservation-related programs and authorities carried out on NFS land); section 8304 (provides for State-to-State reimbursement of amounts expended for resources and services for wildfire management and suppression and authorizes the Secretary to retain any funds received as reimbursements for costs incurred by the Secretary for fire protection and to credit the amounts to the same appropriation from which the expenses were paid); and section 8305 (authorizes establishment of a large airtanker and aerial asset lease program).
Section 9002(a)(5) of the Act adds a new authority to the Secretary, acting through the Forest Products Laboratory of the Forest Service, to provide appropriate technical and other assistance with respect to determining eligibility of forest products for the “USDA Certified Biobased Product” labeling program. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.20 and 2.60 are amended to reflect the delegation of this authority to the Under Secretary for NRE and Chief, Forest Service, respectively.
Section 10016 of the Act adds new authorities regarding local food production and program evaluation. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.21 and 2.67 are amended to reflect that the authority to coordinate implementation of section 10016 is delegated to the Under Secretary for REE and Administrator, Economic Research Service (ERS), respectively. Delegations are also added to 7 CFR 2.16 (Under Secretary for FFAS), 2.22 (Under Secretary for MRP), 2.44 (Administrator, RMA), 2.68 (Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service), and 2.79 (Administrator, AMS) to assist with implementing section 10016.
Section 11014(c) of the Act directs the Secretary to prepare a cropland acreage report and annual updates to the report. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.16 and 2.44 are amended to reflect the delegation of this responsibility to the Under Secretary for FFAS and Administrator, RMA, respectively.
Additionally, a new delegation of authority is added to 7 CFR 2.16 and 2.44 to clarify the authority of the Under Secretary for FFAS and Administrator, RMA, respectively, to administer the Federal Crop Insurance Act.
In title XII of the Act, section 12303 directs the Secretary to maintain, in the Office of the Secretary, an Office of Tribal Relations to advise the Secretary on policies related to Indian tribes and carry out such other functions as the Secretary considers appropriate. The Department already maintains an Office of Tribal Relations within the Office of the Secretary. To reflect this, a new section (§ 2.38) is added to identify the delegated functions and duties of the Director, Office of Tribal Relations, who reports to the Secretary. Some of those functions had been delegated to the Director, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs (§ 2.85(a)(5)), through the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations (§ 2.23(a)(2)(v)), and are now being transferred to the Director, Office of Tribal Relations. Additionally, 7 CFR 2.4 is amended to add the Director, Office of Tribal Relations to the list of general officers of the Department.
Section 12306 authorizes a new competitive grants program to support the efforts of States, tribal governments, and research institutions to promote the domestic maple syrup industry. This authority, which was delegated by SM 1076-005 to the Chief of the Forest Service, through the Under Secretary for NRE, is now being delegated to the Administrator of AMS, through the Under Secretary for MRP. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.22 and 2.79 are amended to reflect this.
Section 12309 directs the Secretary to provide technical assistance to U.S. Customs and Border Protection related to the identification of produce that is represented as grown in the United
The authority of the Secretary to administer section 12314 of the Act (Pima Agriculture Cotton Trust Fund) and section 12315 of the Act (Agriculture Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund), which was delegated by SM 1076-005 to the Administrator of FSA, through the Under Secretary for FFAS, is now being delegated through the Under Secretary to both the Administrator of FSA and the Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Service.
Section 12316 of the Act provides continued funding for grants from the Wool Research, Development, and Promotion Trust Fund, which was established by section 506 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7101 note). The delegation of authority to provide grants from the Trust Fund was inadvertently omitted from 7 CFR part 2. The delegations at 7 CFR 2.22 and 2.79 are amended to reflect the delegation of this authority to the Under Secretary for MRP and the Administrator, AMS.
This rulemaking does not add a separate delegation for section 12101 of the Act to amend a rule issued by APHIS implementing a voluntary trichinae certification program. That regulation was issued under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 and the Animal Health Protection Act, which are already delegated to the Administrator of APHIS. Accordingly, no new delegation is necessary to carry out the requirements of section 12101 of the Act.
Finally, this rulemaking makes a number of miscellaneous changes by removing delegations of statutory authorities that were repealed by the Act or delegations that are otherwise obsolete, and by revising existing delegations to reflect amendments made by the Act or to make other updates or corrections to descriptions and citations.
This rulemaking also amends the delegations of authority to reflect the 2013 realignment of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) and the Office of Budget and Program Analysis (OBPA).
This rulemaking also amends the delegations of authority to reflect the realignment of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) to implement amendments made to section 15(k) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(k)) by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. 112-239.
New delegations of authority are added from the Under Secretary for REE to the Director, NIFA in 7 CFR 2.66 and the Administrator, ERS in 7 CFR 2.67 to enter into agreements with and receive funds from any State, other political subdivision, organization, or individual for the purpose of conducting cooperative research projects (7 U.S.C. 450a).
This rulemaking also amends the delegation of authority from the Under Secretary for RD to the Deputy Under Secretary for RD in 7 CFR 2.45, which gives the Deputy Under Secretary, during the absence or unavailability of the Under Secretary, the authority to perform all the duties and exercise all the powers delegated to the Under Secretary. The delegation is amended to establish the order in which a Deputy Under Secretary may exercise that delegation when the Rural Development mission area has more than one Deputy Under Secretary. The authority shall be exercised first by the Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Planning, and second by the Deputy Under Secretary for Operations and Management.
This rulemaking also revises the delegation of authority to the Under Secretary for NRE in 7 CFR 2.20(a)(2)(viii) to reflect the current administrative review authorities in 36 CFR parts 214, 218, and 219. The delegations of authority to the Under Secretary for NRE in 7 CFR 2.20(a)(2)(xxxix) and Chief of the Forest Service in 7 CFR 2.60(a)(48) are revised to reflect recent changes to the “Service First” program authority (43 U.S.C. 1703).
Additionally, the delegations of authority from the Secretary to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in 7 CFR 2.25 are amended to reflect that the General Counsel has authority for legal sufficiency review of, and concurrence on, settlement offers and draft settlement agreements in Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) matters that meet certain criteria. The delegations to the General Counsel in 7 CFR 2.31 are amended to reflect that authority and to specify those criteria.
The rule also amends the delegations of authority to the Assistant Secretary for Administration in 7 CFR 2.24 and the Director, Office of Human Resources Management in 7 CFR 2.91 to remove Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) from the description of the term “human resources.” This amendment was inadvertently omitted from the final rule transferring ADR authorities to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (78 FR 40935, July 9, 2013).
Finally, a new delegation of authority is added to the Assistant Secretary for Administration in 7 CFR 2.24 and the Director, Office of Advocacy and Outreach in 7 CFR 2.94 to carry out student internship programs under section 922 of the Federal Agriculture
This rulemaking amends 7 CFR part 1, subpart H, Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings Instituted by the Secretary Under Various Statutes, to add a reference to section 28(o)(1) of the Mineral Leasing Act, regarding administrative proceedings involving suspensions or terminations of rights-of-way. The list of statutory provisions in 7 CFR 1.131(a) inadvertently omitted that statutory reference.
This rulemaking also amends the RUS organizational rules to reflect the provisions of the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011, Public Law 112-166. That act amended section 232 of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6942) to no longer require Senate approval for Presidential appointments of the Administrator, RUS. Pursuant to that amendment, the position of Administrator, RUS is no longer subject to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (Vacancies Act) (5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d). The regulations at 7 CFR 1700.25 and 1700.26 are amended by removing the references to Senate approval and the Vacancies Act. This rulemaking also removes 7 CFR 1700.53, which identifies the order of succession for officials to act as the Administrator, RUS during the Administrator's absence. Orders of succession for USDA officials are coordinated uniformly by USDA's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Coordination as part of its Continuity of Operations (COOP) planning, and maintained by USDA outside of the Code of Federal Regulations framework. The order of succession established by Executive Order of the President of the United States for the Secretary of Agriculture is reflected in 7 CFR 2.5.
This rulemaking also amends the Office of the Chief Economist, World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB) regulations by removing an obsolete reference to remote sensing activities in 7 CFR 3800.3. WAOB's remote sensing authorities have been transferred to the Assistant Secretary for Administration and the Chief Information Officer.
This rule relates to internal agency management. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for comment are not required, and this rule may be made effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, Antitrust, Claims, Cooperatives, Courts, Equal access to justice, Fraud, Freedom of information, Government employees, Lawyers, Motion pictures, Penalties, Privacy.
Authority delegations (Government agencies)
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Electric power, Freedom of information, Loan programs-communications, Loan programs-energy, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Rural areas, Telecommunications.
Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Accordingly, 7 CFR Subtitle A, and Chapters XVII and XXXVIII, are amended as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 61, 87e, 228, 268, 499o, 608c(14), 1592, 1624(b), 2151, 2279e, 2621, 2714, 2908, 3812, 4610, 4815, 4910, 6009, 6107, 6207, 6307, 6411, 6519, 6520, 6808, 7107, 7734, 8313; 15 U.S.C. 1828; 16 U.S.C. 620d, 1540(f), 3373; 21 U.S.C. 104, 111, 117, 120, 122, 127, 134e, 134f, 135a, 154, 463(b), 621, 1043; 30 U.S.C. 185(o)(1); 43 U.S.C. 1740; 7 CFR 2.27, 2.35.
(a) * * *
Mineral Leasing Act, section 28(o)(1) (30 U.S.C. 185(o)(1)).
7 U.S.C. 6912(a)(1); 5 U.S.C. 301; Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, 3 CFR 1949-1953 Comp., p. 1024.
The work of the Department is under the supervision and control of the Secretary who is assisted by the following general officers: The Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services; the Under Secretary for Rural Development; the Under Secretary for Food Safety; the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services; the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment; the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics; the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs; the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations; the Assistant Secretary for Administration; the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights; the Chief Financial Officer; the Chief Economist; the Director, Office of Budget and Program Analysis; the General Counsel; the Inspector General; the Director, National Appeals Division; the Judicial Officer; the Director, Office of Communications; the Director, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization; the Director, Office of Tribal Relations; and the Chief Information Officer.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1)
(xviii) Formulate and carry out the Conservation Reserve Program, including the implementation of technical assistance, under the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1231
(xxv) Administer all programs of the Commodity Credit Corporation that provide assistance with respect to the production of agricultural commodities or the income of producers, including disaster assistance and the domestic marketing of such commodities, except as may otherwise be reserved by the Secretary of Agriculture, and similar programs (including commodity quality development programs) consigned by statute to the Secretary of Agriculture unless otherwise delegated.
(xxx) [Reserved]
(xxxi) [Reserved]
(xxxiv) * * *
(A) [Reserved]
(C) [Reserved]
(D) [Reserved]
(F) [Reserved]
(G) [Reserved]
(xxxvi) Administer the following provisions of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79:
(A) Sections 1401-1410 relating to a margin protection program for dairy producers (7 U.S.C. 9051-9060), and section 1431 relating to a dairy product donation program (7 U.S.C. 9071).
(B) Section 1612 relating to the tracking of benefits (7 U.S.C. 9095).
(C) Section 12314 relating to the Pima Agriculture Cotton Trust Fund (7 U.S.C. 2101 note).
(D) Section 12315 relating to the Agriculture Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund (7 U.S.C. 7101 note).
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) Section 306A (7 U.S.C. 1926a) and section 306B (7 U.S.C. 1926b), relating to the emergency community water assistance grant programs, and section 306D (7 U.S.C. 1926d), relating to water systems for rural Alaskan Native Villages;
(H) Section 310C (7 U.S.C. 1933), relating to housing program interest rates;
(I) Section 310G (7 U.S.C. 1936a), relating to the use of rural development loans and grants for other purposes, and section 353A (7 U.S.C. 2001a), relating to the servicing of community facilities loans;
(J) Section 364 (7 U.S.C. 2006f) and section 365 (7 U.S.C. 2008);
(M) Sections 379 (7 U.S.C. 2008n) through 379G (7 U.S.C. 2008u) and subtitles E through I (7 U.S.C. 2009-2009dd-7) relating to rural development programs and activities.
(3) * * *
(xii) Perform functions of the Department in connection with the development and implementation of agreements to finance the sale and exportation of agricultural commodities under the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1691, 1701
(xiii) Administer commodity procurement and supply, transportation (other than from point of export, except for movement to trust territories or possessions), handling, payment, and related services in connection with programs under titles II and III of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1691, 1701
(xiv) Coordinate within the Department activities arising under the Food for Peace Act (except as delegated to the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics in § 2.21(a)(8)), and represent the Department in its relationships in such matters with the Department of State, any interagency committee on the Food for Peace Act, and other departments, agencies and committees of the Government.
(xv) [Reserved]
(xvi) [Reserved]
(xlix) Administer the following provisions of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79:
(A) Section 12314 relating to the Pima Agriculture Cotton Trust Fund (7 U.S.C. 2101 note).
(B) Section 12315 relating to the Agriculture Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund (7 U.S.C. 7101 note).
(4) * * *
(vi) Carry out functions relating to highly erodible land and wetland conservation under sections 1211-1213 and 1221-1223 of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (16 U.S.C. 3811-3813 and 3821-3823).
(vii) Prepare cropland reports as required by section 11014(c) of the Agricultural Act of 2013, Public Law 113-79.
(viii) Assist the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics with implementing section 10016 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 regarding locally or regionally produced agricultural food products (7 U.S.C. 2204h).
(ix) Administer the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501,
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Determining the agricultural commodities and the quantities thereof available for disposition under the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1731).
(a) * * *
(20) * * *
(x) [Reserved]
(xii) Administer section 6407 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8107a), relating to a rural energy savings program.
(xiii) Administer section 6210 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79, relating to funding of pending rural development loan and grant applications.
(21) * * *
(ii) * * *
(E) Section 310H (7 U.S.C. 1936b), relating to an intermediary relending program.
(iv) [Reserved]
(xxvi) Administer the Healthy Food Financing Initiative under section 243 of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6953).
(xxvii) Administer section 6209 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 2207b), relating to the collection and reporting of program metrics.
(28) [Reserved]
The additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(M) [Removed]
(vii) Administer the following provisions of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79:
(A) Section 4004(b), relating to a demonstration project regarding the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (7 U.S.C. 2013 note).
(B) Section 4031, relating to a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands pilot program regarding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (48 U.S.C. 1841 note).
(C) Section 4032, relating to annual State reporting on verification of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participation (7 U.S.C. 2036c).
(D) Section 4033, relating to service of traditional foods in public facilities (25 U.S.C. 443d).
(E) Section 4214, relating to a pilot project for canned, frozen, or dried fruits and vegetables as part of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769a note).
(viii) Administer section 301 of the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990, relating to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (7 U.S.C. 5341).
(ix) Implement section 242 of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6952), relating to establishment of a multiagency task force for the purpose of providing coordination and direction for commodity programs.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(viii) Exercise the administrative appeal review functions of the Secretary of Agriculture for decisions of the Chief of the Forest Service pursuant to 36 CFR parts 214, 218, and 219.
(xxviii) Represent USDA in all matters relating to responsibilities and authorities under the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a-823).
(xxxvii) [Reserved]
(xxxix) Establish programs with any bureau of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) in support of the Service First initiative for the purpose of promoting customer service and efficiency including delegating to DOI employees those authorities of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) necessary to carry out projects on behalf of USDA (43 U.S.C. 1703).
(xliii) [Reserved]
(xliv) Administer the community wood energy program providing grants to develop community wood energy plans, acquire or upgrade community wood energy systems, and establish or expand biomass consumer cooperatives (7 U.S.C. 8113).
(xlvi) Administer the programs authorized by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6501
(xlvii) Administer Good Neighbor contracts and cooperative agreements with a State to carry out forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services on National Forest System lands (16 U.S.C. 2113a; Pub. L. 106-291, section 331, as amended).
(xlviii) Utilize the Agriculture Conservation Experienced Services (ACES) Program (16 U.S.C. 3851) to provide technical services for conservation-related programs and authorities carried out on National Forest System lands (16 U.S.C. 3851a).
(xlix) Administer reimbursements received for fire suppression (42 U.S.C. 1856e; 42 U.S.C. 1856d(b)).
(l) Administer the large airtanker and aerial asset lease program (16 U.S.C. 551c).
(li) Provide technical and other assistance with respect to eligibility of forest products for the “USDA Certified Biobased Products” labeling program (7 U.S.C. 8102(g)).
(3) * * *
(xiii) * * *
(S) The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program authorized by sections 1265-1265D of the Act (16 U.S.C. 3865-3865d).
(T) The Regional Conservation Partnership Program authorized by sections 1271-1271F (16 U.S.C. 3871-3871f).
(U) The Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program authorized by section 1240R of the Act (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-5).
(V) A wetlands mitigation banking program authorized by section 1222(k) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 3822(k)).
(xxv) Administer the Terminal Lakes assistance program authorized by section 2507 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-6).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Provide national leadership and support for research, extension, and teaching programs in the food and agricultural sciences to carry out sustainable agriculture research and education; a National Plant Genetic Resources Program; a national agricultural weather information system; and any other provisions pursuant to title XVI of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-624, 104 Stat. 3703).
(xix) Carry out a program (IR-4 Program) for the collection of residue and efficacy data in support of registration or reregistration of pesticides for minor agricultural use and for use on specialty crops, and to determine tolerances for minor use chemical residues in or on agricultural commodities (7 U.S.C. 450i(e)).
(xxv) Conduct a Special Cotton Research Program designed to reduce the cost of producing upland cotton in the United States (7 U.S.C. 1444a(c)).
(xxviii) [Reserved]
(xxix) [Reserved]
(xxx) Conduct education and extension programs related to nutrition education (7 U.S.C. 2027(a)).
(xlii) [Reserved]
(xlviii) Administer a National Food and Human Nutrition Research and Extension Program (7 U.S.C. 3171-3173, 3175).
(l) Support continuing agricultural and forestry extension and research at 1890 land-grant institutions, including Tuskegee University (7 U.S.C. 3221, 3222, 3222d).
(lv) [Reserved]
(lxvi) Develop and make available handbooks, technical guides, and other educational materials emphasizing sustainable agriculture production systems and practices; carry out activities related to a national training program for sustainable agriculture (7 U.S.C. 5831, 5832).
(lxvii) [Reserved]
(lxxii) [Reserved]
(lxxiii) [Reserved]
(lxxiv) [Reserved]
(lxxv) [Reserved]
(lxxvi) [Reserved]
(lxxviii) [Reserved]
(lxxx) Administer a competitive high priority research and extension grants program in specified subject areas (7 U.S.C. 5925), including pollinator activities (7 U.S.C. 5925(g)) not otherwise delegated to the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs in § 2.22(a)(2)(xli); prepare an annual report to Congress regarding pollinator issues (7 U.S.C. 5925(g)(5)).
(lxxxi) [Reserved]
(lxxxii) Administer competitive grants to support research, education, and extension activities regarding organically grown and processed agricultural commodities (7 U.S.C. 5925b).
(lxxxviii) [Reserved]
(ciii) Administer a cooperative forestry program in accordance with the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act, and administer a competitive forestry, natural resources, and environmental grant program (16 U.S.C. 582a-582-8).
(cxi) [Reserved]
(cxvi) [Reserved]
(cxvii) Obtain and furnish Federal excess property to eligible recipients for use in the conduct of research and extension programs (40 U.S.C. 525(c)).
(cxix) [Reserved]
(cxx) [Reserved]
(cxxiv) Represent the Department on the Federal Interagency Committee on Education.
(cxxxv) Administer the Department's Patent Program except as delegated to the General Counsel in § 2.31(a)(5).
(cxli) Implement and administer the Community Food Projects Program under section 25 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2034).
(cxlv) [Reserved]
(cxlvi) [Reserved]
(cliii) Establish procedures that provide for scientific peer review of each agricultural research grant administered on a competitive basis, and for relevancy and merit review of each agricultural research, extension, or education grant administered on a competitive basis, by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (7 U.S.C. 7613(a)).
(clxx) [Reserved]
(clxxix) [Reserved]
(clxxxiv) Administer grants to assist the land-grant colleges and universities in insular areas to acquire, alter, or repair facilities or relevant equipment necessary for conducting agricultural research; and to support tropical and subtropical agricultural research, including pest and disease research (7 U.S.C. 3222b-2).
(clxxxv) Enter into agreements necessary to administer an Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities Fund; enter into agreements necessary to administer a program of making annual payments to Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities; administer an institutional capacity-building grants program for Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities; administer a competitive grants program to fund fundamental and applied research and extension at Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities and to award competitive grants to Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities to provide for training in the food and agricultural sciences of Hispanic agricultural workers and Hispanic youth working in
(clxxxviii) [Reserved]
(cxcvi) [Reserved]
(cxcix) [Reserved]
(cc) [Reserved]
(ccvi) Administer a food insecurity nutrition incentive program (7 U.S.C. 7517).
(ccvii) Administer a food and agriculture service learning grant program (7 U.S.C. 7633).
(ccviii) Administer a veterinary services grant program (7 U.S.C. 3151b).
(ccix) Enter into grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or other legal instruments with former Department of Agriculture agricultural research facilities (7 U.S.C. 3315(b)).
(ccx) Administer a forestry and forestry products research and extension initiative (7 U.S.C. 7655b).
(ccxi) Submit to Congress an annual report describing agricultural research, extension, and education activities carried out by the Federal Government (7 U.S.C. 7614c(f)).
(ccxii) Enter into cooperative agreements with institutions of higher education regarding the dissemination of agricultural and food law research, legal tools, and information (7 U.S.C. 3125a-1).
(7) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) Research on the factors affecting food preference and habits (7 U.S.C. 3171-3173, 3175).
(8) * * *
(iii) [Reserved]
(xi) [Reserved]
(xviii) Coordinate implementation of section 10016 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 regarding locally or regionally produced agricultural food products (7 U.S.C. 2204h).
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Final approval and issuance of the crop and livestock reports.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Exercise the functions of the Secretary of Agriculture contained in the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627b), including payments to State Departments of Agriculture in connection with cooperative marketing service projects under section 204(b) (7 U.S.C. 1623(b)), but excepting matters otherwise assigned.
(ii) * * *
(C) Application of presently available scientific knowledge to the solution of practical problems encountered in the marketing of agricultural products (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627b).
(viii) * * *
(CCC) Farmers' Market Promotion Program (7 U.S.C. 3005).
(MMM) [Reserved]
(PPP) [Reserved]
(QQQ) Section 4213(c) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 1755b(c)).
(RRR) Section 12306 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 1632c).
(SSS) Section 506 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7101 note).
(xiii) Assist the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics with implementing section 10016 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 regarding locally or regionally produced agricultural food products (7 U.S.C. 2204h).
(2) * * *
(xli) Section 1672(g)(3) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925(g)(3)) regarding honey bee pest, pathogen, health, and population status surveillance.
(xlii) Section 12309 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 regarding produce represented as grown in the United States (19 U.S.C. 1304a).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) [Reserved]
(5)
(6) * * *
(xix) In coordination with the Chief Financial Officer, implement the debarment authorities in section 14211 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2009j), in connection with procurement activities.
(7) * * *
(xv) Serve as a lead agency in carrying out student internship programs (7 U.S.C. 2279c).
(a) * * *
(16) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) To make final agency decisions, or enter into settlement agreements on EEO complaints by Department employees or applicants for employment and order such corrective measures in response to such complaints as may be considered necessary, except that in qualifying cases as described in § 2.31(a)(18) the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights must first obtain legal sufficiency review and concurrence by the General Counsel before extending settlement offers or entering into settlement agreements. Corrective measures may include recommending to the Office of Human Resources Management and the affected agency or office that appropriate disciplinary action be taken when an employee has been found to have engaged in a discriminatory practice.
(a) The Chief Financial Officer, under the supervision of the Secretary of Agriculture, is responsible for executing the duties enumerated for agency Chief Financial Officers in the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, Public Law 101-576, 31 U.S.C. 902, and additional specified duties, including:
(1) Report directly to the Secretary regarding financial management matters.
(2) Oversee all financial management activities relating to the programs and operations of the Department and component agencies.
(3) Develop and maintain an integrated accounting and financial system for the Department and component agencies, including financial reporting and internal controls, which—
(i) Complies with applicable accounting principles, standards, and requirements, and internal control standards;
(ii) Complies with such policies and requirements as may be prescribed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB);
(iii) Complies with any other requirements applicable to such systems; and
(iv) Provides for complete, reliable, consistent, and timely information which is prepared on a uniform basis and which is responsive to the financial information needs of Department management and for the development and reporting of cost information, the integration of accounting and budgeting information, and the systematic measurement of performance.
(4) Make recommendations to the Secretary regarding the selection of the Deputy Chief Financial Officer of the Department, and selection of principal financial officers of component agencies of the Department.
(5) Direct, manage, and provide policy guidance and oversight of Department financial management personnel, activities, and operations, including:
(i) Prepare and annually revise a Departmental plan to:
(A) Implement the 5-year financial management plan prepared by the Director of OMB under 31 U.S.C. 3512(a)(3); and
(B) Comply with the requirements established for agency financial statements under 31 U.S.C. 3515 and with the requirements for audits of Department financial statements established in 31 U.S.C. 3521(e) and (f).
(ii) Develop Departmental financial management budgets, including the oversight and recommendation of approval of component agency financial management budgets.
(iii) Recruit, select, and train personnel to carry out Departmental financial management functions.
(iv) Approve and manage Departmental, and approve component agency, financial management systems design or enhancement projects.
(v) Implement and approve Departmental, and approve component agency, asset management systems, including systems for cash management, credit management, debt collection, and property and inventory management and control.
(6) Prepare and transmit, by not later than 60 days after the submission of the audit report required by 31 U.S.C. 3521(f), an annual report to the Secretary and the Director of OMB, which shall include:
(i) A description and analysis of the status of financial management of the Department.
(ii) The annual financial statements prepared under 31 U.S.C. 3521.
(iii) The audit report transmitted to the Secretary under 31 U.S.C. 3521.
(iv) A summary of the reports on internal accounting and administrative control systems submitted to the President and the Congress under the amendments made by the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (31 U.S.C. 1113, 3512).
(v) Other information the Secretary considers appropriate to inform fully the President and the Congress concerning the financial management of the Department.
(7) Monitor the financial execution of the budget of the Department in relation to projected and actual expenditures, and prepare and submit to the Secretary timely performance reports.
(8) Review, on a biennial basis, the fees, royalties, rent, and other charges imposed by the Department for services and things of value it produces, and make recommendations on revising those charges to reflect costs incurred by the Department in providing those services and things of value.
(9) Access all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, or other material that are the property of the Department or that are available to the Department, and that relate to programs and operations with respect to which the Chief Financial Officer has responsibilities, except that this grant allows no access greater than that permitted under any other law to records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, or other material of the Office of Inspector General.
(10) Request such information or assistance as may be necessary for carrying out the duties and responsibilities granted by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-576), from any Federal, State, or local governmental entity.
(11) To the extent and in such amounts as may be provided in advance by appropriations acts, enter into contracts and other arrangements with public agencies and with private persons for the preparation of financial statements, studies, analyses, and other services, and making such payments as may be necessary to carry out the duties and prerogatives of the Chief Financial Officer.
(12) Designate the Department's Comptroller of the Department Working Capital Fund.
(13) Establish Departmental policies, standards, techniques, and procedures applicable to all USDA agencies for the following areas:
(i) Development, maintenance, review and approval of all departmental, and review and approval of component agency, internal control, fiscal, financial management and accounting systems including the financial aspects of payment management and property systems.
(ii) Selection, standardization, and simplification of program delivery processes utilizing grants, cooperative agreements and other forms of Federal assistance.
(iii) Review and approval of Federal assistance, internal control, fiscal, accounting and financial management regulations and instructions proposed or issued by USDA agencies for conformity with Departmental requirements.
(iv) Section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 862) as it relates to grants, loans, and licenses.
(14) Establish policies related to the Department Working Capital Fund.
(15) Approve regulations, procedures and rates for goods and services financed through the Department Working Capital Fund which will impact the financial administration of the Fund.
(16) Exercise responsibility and authority for operating USDA's financial and subsidiary management systems and related administrative systems including: Departmentwide payroll and personnel information systems, statistics, administrative payments, billings and collections, and related reporting systems that are either requested by the agencies or required by the Department.
(17) Manage the National Finance Center (NFC).
(18) Provide management support services for the NFC, and by agreement with agency heads concerned, provide such services for other USDA tenants housed in the same facility. As used herein, such management support services shall include:
(i) Personnel services, as listed in § 2.24(a)(4)(x), and organizational support services, with authority to take actions required by law or regulation to perform such services; and
(ii) Procurement, property management, space management, communications, messenger, paperwork management, and related administrative services, with authority to take actions required by law or regulation to perform such services.
(19) Exercise responsibility and authority for all matters related to the Department's accounting and financial operations including such activities as:
(i) Financial administration, including accounting and related activities.
(ii) Reviewing financial aspects of agency operations and proposals.
(iii) Furnishing consulting services to agencies to assist them in developing and maintaining accounting and financial management systems and internal controls, and for other purposes consistent with delegations in paragraph (a)(13) of this section.
(iv) Reviewing and monitoring agency implementation of Federal assistance policies.
(v) Reviewing and approving agencies' accounting systems documentation including related development plans, activities, and controls.
(vi) Monitoring agencies' progress in developing and revising accounting and financial management systems and internal controls.
(vii) Evaluating agencies' financial systems to determine the effectiveness of procedures employed, compliance with regulations, and the appropriateness of policies and practices.
(viii) Promulgation of Department schedule of fees and charges for reproductions, furnishing of copies and making searches for official records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
(ix) Monitoring USDA implementation of section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 862) as it relates to grants, loans, and licenses.
(20) Establish Department and approve component agency programs, policies, standards, systems, techniques and procedures to improve the management and operational efficiency and effectiveness of the USDA including:
(i) Increased use of operations research and management science in the areas of productivity and management.
(ii) All activities financed through the Department Working Capital Fund.
(21) Develop Departmental policies, standards, techniques, and procedures for the conduct of reviews and analysis of the utilization of the resources of State and local governments, other Federal agencies and of the private sector in domestic program operations.
(22) Represent the Department in contacts with OMB, General Services Administration, GAO, Department of the Treasury, Office of Personnel Management, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Commerce, Congress of the United States, State and local governments, universities, and other public and private sector individuals, organizations or agencies on matters related to assigned responsibilities.
(23) Establish policies related to travel by USDA employees.
(24) Provide budget, accounting, fiscal, and related financial management services, with authority to take action required by law or regulation to provide such services for:
(i) The Secretary of Agriculture.
(ii) The general officers of the Department, except the Inspector General.
(iii) The offices and agencies reporting to the Assistant Secretary for Administration as a Working Capital Fund activity.
(iv) Any other offices or agencies of the Department as may be agreed.
(25) Develop, promulgate, and coordinate Department-wide policy concerning nonprocurement debarment and suspension.
(26) Prepare and submit to Congress reports on conferences sponsored or held by the Department or attended by employees of the Department (7 U.S.C. 2255b).
(27) Administer the debarment authorities in section 14211 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2209j) in coordination with the Director, Office of Procurement and Property Management.
(28) Redelegate, as appropriate, any authority delegated under this section to general officers of the Department and heads of Departmental agencies.
(b) [Reserved]
The additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(14) * * *
(iii) Make competitive grants to, or enter into cooperative agreements with, agricultural and food policy research centers (7 U.S.C. 3155).
(b) [Reserved]
(a) The following delegations of authority are made by the Secretary of Agriculture to the Director, Office of Budget and Program Analysis:
(1) Serve as the Department's Budget Officer and exercise general responsibility and authority for all matters related to the Department's budgeting affairs including:
(i) Resource administration, including all phases of the acquisition, and distribution of funds and staff years.
(ii) Legislative and regulatory reporting and related activities.
(2) Provide staff assistance for the Secretary, general officers, and other Department and agency officials.
(3) Formulate and promulgate Departmental budgetary, legislative and regulatory policies and procedures.
(4) Represent the Department in contacts with the Office of Management and Budget, the Government Accountability Office, the Department of the Treasury, Congressional Committees on Appropriations, and other organizations and agencies on matters related to his or her responsibility.
(5) Coordinate and/or conduct policy and program analyses on agency operations and proposals to assist the Secretary, general officers and other Department and agency officials in formulating and implementing USDA policies and programs.
(6) Review and analyze legislation, regulations, and policy options to determine their impact on USDA programs and policy objectives and on the Department's budget.
(7) Monitor ongoing studies with significant program or policy implications.
(8) Exercise responsibility for coordinating and overseeing the implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Public Law 103-62, and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Public Law 111-352, at the Department.
(b) The following authority is reserved to the Secretary of Agriculture: Final approval of the Department's program and financial plans.
(a) * * *
(18) Conduct legal sufficiency reviews and concur prior to final implementation for all Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) settlement offers and agreements involving complaints that:
(i) Are brought by, or allege discriminatory conduct by, any political appointee;
(ii) Involve any combination of compensatory damages, attorney's fees, back pay awards, or any other compensation resulting in costs to the Department totaling $200,000 or more; or
(iii) Place any political appointee on a detail outside the Department or on an Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) agreement for one year or more if the Department retains the obligation to pay the employee's salary and benefits during the duration of the detail or IPA agreement.
The Director, National Appeals Division, under the general supervision of the Secretary or Deputy Secretary, has specific duties, responsibilities, and authorities pursuant to subtitle H of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public Law 103-354 (7 U.S.C. 6991
(a) In compliance with the Small Business Act, the Director, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization is designated as the Department's Director of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, who shall report directly to the Secretary of Agriculture or the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. The Director of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization has specific responsibilities under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 644(k). These duties include being responsible for the following:
(1) Administer the Department's small and disadvantaged business activities related to procurement contracts, minority bank deposits, and grants and loan activities affecting small and minority businesses including women-owned business, and the small business, small minority business, and small women-owned business subcontracting programs.
(2) Provide Departmentwide liaison and coordination of activities related to small, small disadvantaged, and women-owned businesses with the Small Business Administration and others in the public and private sector.
(3) Develop policies and procedures required by the applicable provision of the Small Business Act, as amended, to include the establishment of goals.
(4) Implement and administer programs described under sections 8 and 15 of the Small Business Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 637 and 644).
(5) In compliance with the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-183) amending the Small Business Act, implement and administer procurement programs for small business concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans.
(b) The following additional authorities are delegated by the Secretary of Agriculture to the Director, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization:
(1) In compliance with the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501
(2) [Reserved]
(a)
(1) Serve as the Department's primary point of contact for tribal issues.
(2) Advise the Secretary on policies related to Indian tribes.
(3) Serve as the official with principal responsibility for the implementation of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” including the provision of Department-wide guidance and oversight regarding tribal consultation, coordination, and collaboration.
(4) Coordinate the Department's programs involving assistance to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
(5) Enter into cooperative agreements to improve the coordination and effectiveness of Federal programs, services, and actions affecting rural areas (7 U.S.C. 2204b(b)(4)); and to provide outreach and technical assistance to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers and veteran farmers and ranchers (7 U.S.C. 2279(a)(3)).
(b) [Reserved]
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(20) Formulate and carry out the Conservation Reserve Program, including the implementation of technical assistance, under the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1231
(28) * * *
(iii) Section 306A (7 U.S.C. 1926a) and section 306B (7 U.S.C. 1926b), relating to the Emergency Community Water Assistance Grant Programs, and section 306D (7 U.S.C. 1926d), relating to water systems for rural Alaskan Native Villages;
(viii) Section 310C (7 U.S.C. 1933), relating to housing program interest rates;
(ix) Section 310G (7 U.S.C. 1936a), relating to the use of rural development loans and grants for other purposes, and section 353A (7 U.S.C. 2001a), relating to the servicing of community facilities loans;
(x) Section 364 (7 U.S.C. 2006f) and section 365 (7 U.S.C. 2008);
(xiii) Sections 379 (7 U.S.C. 2008n) through 379G (7 U.S.C. 2008u) and subtitles E through I (7 U.S.C. 2009-2009dd-7) relating to rural development programs and activities.
(45) Administer all programs of the Commodity Credit Corporation that provide assistance with respect to the production of agricultural commodities
(52) [Reserved]
(53) [Reserved]
(56) * * *
(i) [Reserved]
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) [Reserved]
(vi) [Reserved]
(vii) [Reserved]
(58) Administer the following provisions of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79:
(i) Sections 1401-1410 relating to a margin protection program for dairy producers (7 U.S.C. 9051-9060), and section 1431 relating to a dairy product donation program (7 U.S.C. 9071).
(ii) Section 1612 relating to the tracking of benefits (7 U.S.C. 9095).
(iii) Section 12314 relating to the Pima Agriculture Cotton Trust Fund (7 U.S.C. 2101 note), in coordination with the Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service.
(iv) Section 12315 relating to the Agriculture Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund (7 U.S.C. 7101 note), in coordination with the Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service.
(59) Enter into cooperative agreements under section 1472(b) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3318(b)) for the purpose of implementing section 1614(c)(3) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9097(c)).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(16) Perform functions of the Department in connection with the development and implementation of agreements to finance the sale and exportation of agricultural commodities on long-term credit or for foreign currencies under the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1691, 1701
(17) Coordinate within the Department activities arising under the Food for Peace Act (except as delegated to the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics in § 2.21(a)(8)), and to represent the Department in its relationships in such matters with the Department of State, any interagency committee on the Food for Peace Act, and other departments, agencies, and committees of the Government.
(18) [Reserved]
(19) [Reserved]
(50) Administer the following provisions of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79:
(i) Section 12314 relating to the Pima Agriculture Cotton Trust Fund (7 U.S.C. 2101 note), in coordination with the Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
(ii) Section 12315 relating to the Agriculture Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund (7 U.S.C. 7101 note), in coordination with the Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
(a) * * *
(5) Carry out functions relating to highly erodible land and wetland conservation under sections 1211-1213 and 1221-1223 of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (16 U.S.C. 3811-3813 and 3821-3823).
(6) Prepare cropland reports as required by section 11014(c) of the Agricultural Act of 2013, Public Law 113-79.
(7) Assist the Administrator, Economic Research Service with implementing section 10016 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 regarding locally or regionally produced agricultural food products (7 U.S.C. 2204h).
(8) Administer the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501,
Pursuant to § 2.17(a), subject to reservations in § 2.17(b), and subject to policy guidance and direction by the Under Secretary for Rural Development, the following delegation of authority is made to the Deputy Under Secretary for Rural Development, to be exercised only during the absence or unavailability of the Under Secretary: Perform all the duties and exercise all the powers which are now or which may hereafter be delegated to the Under Secretary for Rural Development: Provided, that this authority shall be exercised first by the Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Planning, and second by the Deputy Under Secretary for Operations and Management.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a)
(4) * * *
(xii) [Reserved]
(15) [Reserved]
(17) Administer section 6407 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8107a), relating to a rural energy savings program.
(18) Administer section 6210 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79, relating to funding of pending rural development loan and grant applications.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a)
(2) * * *
(v) Section 310H (7 U.S.C. 1936b), relating to an intermediary relending program.
(4) [Reserved]
(33) Administer the Healthy Food Financing Initiative under section 243 of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6953).
(34) Administer section 6209 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 2207b), relating to the collection and reporting of program metrics.
(a)
The additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(15) Administer the following provisions of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79:
(i) Section 4004(b), relating to a demonstration project regarding the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (7 U.S.C. 2013 note).
(ii) Section 4031, relating to a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands pilot program regarding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (48 U.S.C. 1841 note).
(iii) Section 4032, relating to annual State reporting on verification of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participation (7 U.S.C. 2036c).
(iv) Section 4033, relating to service of traditional foods in public facilities (25 U.S.C. 443d).
(v) Section 4214, relating to a pilot project for canned, frozen, or dried fruits and vegetables as part of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769a note).
(16) Administer section 301 of the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990, relating to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (7 U.S.C. 5341).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(28) Represent USDA in all matters relating to responsibilities and authorities under the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a-823).
(45) [Reserved]
(48) Establish programs with any bureau of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) in support of the Service First initiative for the purpose of promoting customer service and efficiency including delegating to DOI employees those authorities of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) necessary to carry out projects on behalf of USDA (43 U.S.C. 1703).
(52) [Reserved]
(53) Administer the community wood energy program providing grants to develop community wood energy plans, acquire or upgrade community wood energy systems, and establish or expand biomass consumer cooperatives (7 U.S.C. 8113).
(55) Administer the programs authorized by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6501
(56) Administer Good Neighbor contracts and cooperative agreements with a State to carry out forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services on National Forest System lands (16 U.S.C. 2113a; Public Law 106-291, section 331, as amended).
(57) Utilize the Agriculture Conservation Experienced Services (ACES) Program (16 U.S.C. 3851) to provide technical services for conservation-related programs and authorities carried out on National Forest System lands (16 U.S.C. 3851a).
(58) Administer reimbursements received for fire suppression (16 U.S.C. 1856e; 42 U.S.C. 1856d(b)).
(59) Administer the large airtanker and aerial asset lease program (16 U.S.C. 551c).
(60) Provide technical and other assistance with respect to eligibility of forest products for the “USDA Certified Biobased Products” labeling program (7 U.S.C. 8102(g)).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(13) * * *
(xix) The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program authorized by sections 1265-1265D of the Act (16 U.S.C. 3865-3865d).
(xx) The Regional Conservation Partnership Program authorized by sections 1271-1271F (16 U.S.C. 3871-3871f).
(xxi) The Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program authorized by section 1240R of the Act (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-5).
(xxii) A wetlands mitigation banking program authorized by section 1222(k) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 3822(k)).
(16) [Reserved]
(30) Administer the Terminal Lakes assistance program authorized by section 2507 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-6).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(15) Conduct a Special Cotton Research Program designed to reduce the cost of producing upland cotton in the United States (7 U.S.C. 1444a(c)).
(16) [Reserved]
(25) [Reserved]
(30) [Reserved]
(34) [Reserved]
(35) [Reserved]
(36) [Reserved]
(37) [Reserved]
(53) [Reserved]
(55) [Reserved]
(58) Administer the Department's Patent Program except as delegated to the General Counsel in § 2.31(a)(5).
(61) [Reserved]
(64) Administer a National Food and Human Nutrition Research Program under the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended. As used herein the term “research” includes:
(iii) Research on the factors affecting food preference and habits (7 U.S.C. 3171-3173, 3175).
(82) [Reserved]
(83) [Reserved]
(113) Carry out pollinator health research activities (7 U.S.C. 5925(g)(2)).
(114) Enter into grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or other legal instruments with former Department of Agriculture agricultural research facilities (7 U.S.C. 3315(b)).
(115) Enter into cooperative agreements with institutions of higher education regarding the dissemination of agricultural and food law research, legal tools, and information (7 U.S.C. 3125a-1).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(6) Carry out a program (IR-4 Program) for the collection of residue and efficacy data in support of registration or reregistration of pesticides for minor agricultural use and for use on specialty crops, and to determine tolerances for minor use chemical residues in or on agricultural commodities (7 U.S.C. 450i(e)).
(16) [Reserved]
(17) Administer and direct an Animal Health and Disease Research Program under the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3191-3201).
(18) Support continuing agricultural and forestry extension and research, at 1890 land-grant institutions, including Tuskegee University (7 U.S.C. 3221, 3222, 3222d).
(21) [Reserved]
(34) [Reserved]
(35) [Reserved]
(36) [Reserved]
(39) [Reserved]
(42) Administer a competitive high priority research and extension grants program in specified subject areas (7 U.S.C. 5925), including pollinator activities (7 U.S.C. 5925(g)) not otherwise delegated to the Administrator, Agricultural Research Service in § 2.65(a)(113) and the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in § 2.80(a)(47).
(43) [Reserved]
(44) Administer competitive grants to support research, education, and extension activities regarding organically grown and processed agricultural commodities (7 U.S.C. 5925b).
(57) Represent the Department on the Federal Interagency Committee on Education.
(64) [Reserved]
(65) [Reserved]
(73) [Reserved]
(78) Develop and make available handbooks, technical guides, and other educational materials emphasizing sustainable agriculture production systems and practices; carry out activities related to a national training program for sustainable agriculture (7 U.S.C. 5831, 5832).
(79) [Reserved]
(80) [Reserved]
(81) [Reserved]
(83) Conduct education and extension programs related to nutrition education (7 U.S.C. 2027(a)).
(91) [Reserved]
(96) [Reserved]
(102) Implement and administer the Community Food Projects Program under section 25 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2034).
(105) [Reserved]
(109) [Reserved]
(121) Establish procedures that provide for scientific peer review of each agricultural research grant administered on a competitive basis, and for relevancy and merit review of each agricultural research, extension, or education grant administered on a competitive basis, by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (7 U.S.C. 7613(a)).
(137) [Reserved]
(143) Administer grants to assist the land-grant colleges and universities in insular areas to acquire, alter, or repair facilities or relevant equipment necessary for conducting agricultural research; and to support tropical and subtropical agricultural research, including pest and disease research (7 U.S.C. 3222b-2).
(144) Enter into agreements necessary to administer an Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities Fund; enter into agreements necessary to administer a program of making annual payments to Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities; administer an institutional capacity-building grants program for Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities; administer a competitive grants program to fund fundamental and applied research and extension at Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities and to award competitive grants to Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities to provide for training in the food and agricultural sciences of Hispanic agricultural workers and Hispanic youth working in the food and agricultural sciences (7 U.S.C. 3243).
(147) [Reserved]
(152) [Reserved]
(154) [Reserved]
(155) [Reserved]
(161) Enter into agreements with and receive funds from any State, other political subdivision, organization, or individual for the purpose of conducting cooperative research projects (7 U.S.C. 450a).
(162) Administer a food insecurity nutrition incentive program (7 U.S.C. 7517).
(163) Administer a food and agriculture service learning grant program (7 U.S.C. 7633).
(164) Administer a veterinary services grant program (7 U.S.C. 3151b).
(165) Administer a forestry and forestry products research and extension initiative (7 U.S.C. 7655b).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) [Reserved]
(7) [Reserved]
(21) Enter into agreements with and receive funds from any State, other political subdivision, organization, or individual for the purpose of conducting cooperative research projects (7 U.S.C. 450a).
(22) Coordinate implementation of section 10016 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 regarding locally or regionally produced agricultural food products (7 U.S.C. 2204h).
(a) * * *
(13) Assist the Administrator, Economic Research Service with implementing section 10016 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 regarding locally or regionally produced agricultural food products (7 U.S.C. 2204h).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) Exercise the functions of the Secretary of Agriculture contained in the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627b), including payments to State Departments of Agriculture in connection with cooperative marketing service projects under section 204(b) (7 U.S.C. 1623(b)), but excepting matters otherwise assigned.
(2) * * *
(iii) Application of presently available scientific knowledge to the solution of practical problems encountered in the marketing of agricultural products (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627b).
(8) * * *
(lxiii) Farmers' Market Promotion Program (7 U.S.C. 3005).
(lxxiii) [Reserved]
(lxxvi) [Reserved]
(lxxvii) Section 4213(c) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 1755b(c)).
(lxxviii) Section 12306 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 1632c).
(lxxix) Section 506 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7101 note).
(15) Assist the Administrator, Economic Research Service with implementing section 10016 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 regarding locally or regionally produced agricultural food products (7 U.S.C. 2204h).
The revision and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(47) Section 1672(g)(3) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925(g)(3)) regarding honey bee pest, pathogen, health, and population status surveillance.
(48) Section 12309 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 regarding produce represented as grown in the United States (19 U.S.C. 1304a).
(a)
(a) * * *
(15) Serve as a lead agency in carrying out student internship programs (7 U.S.C. 2279c).
Pursuant to § 2.28, the following delegation of authority is made by the Chief Financial Officer to the Deputy Chief Financial Officer, to be exercised only during the absence or unavailability of the Chief Financial Officer: Perform all the duties and exercise all the powers which are now or which may hereafter be delegated to the Chief Financial Officer.
5 U.S.C. 301, 552; 7 U.S.C. 901
The Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and of the Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) is appointed by the President. The Under Secretary, Rural Development delegated to the Administrator, in 7 CFR part 2, responsibility for administering the programs and activities of RUS and RTB. The Administrator is aided directly by Deputy Administrators and by Assistant Administrators for the electric program, telecommunications program, the water and environmental programs, and program accounting and regulatory analysis, and by other staff offices. The work of the agency is carried out as described in this part.
The Deputy Administrator aids and assists the Administrator. The Deputy Administrator provides overall policy direction to all RUS programs. The Deputy Administrator reviews agency policies and, as necessary, implements changes and participates with the Administrator and other officials in planning and formulating the programs and activities of the agency, including the making and servicing of loans and grants.
5 U.S.C. 301 and 552, and 7 CFR 2.72, except as otherwise noted.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
We are amending the regulations concerning the importation of fruits and vegetables to allow the importation of fresh blueberries from Morocco into the continental United States. As a condition of entry, the blueberries must be produced under a systems approach employing a combination of mitigation measures for two quarantine pests,
Ms. Dorothy Wayson, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2036.
The regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1
On December 31, 2013, we published in the
Based on the RMD, we proposed to require the blueberries to be produced under a systems approach employing a combination of mitigation measures for two quarantine pests,
We solicited comments concerning the proposed rule for 60 days ending March 3, 2014. We received six comments by that date, all from private citizens. The comments are discussed below.
One commenter stated that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) should prohibit the importation of blueberries from other countries into the United States. Another commenter agreed, stating that the distance between Morocco and the United States is great, and therefore, blueberries would need to be picked prematurely, which would negatively affect the quality of the fruit.
Such prohibitions would be beyond the scope of APHIS' statutory authority under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701
Additionally, as a signatory to the World Trade Organization Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the United States has agreed that any prohibitions it places on the importation of fruits and vegetables will be based on scientific evidence, and will not be maintained without sufficient scientific evidence. The blanket prohibitions requested by the commenters would not be in keeping with this agreement.
A few commenters expressed concern that the importation of blueberries from Morocco poses a high risk of introducing quarantine pests into the United States.
For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, the RMD, and this final rule, we are confident that the systems approach and other requirements of this final rule will adequately mitigate the risks associated with the importation of blueberries from Morocco.
We proposed to include in the regulations that blueberries would have to be inspected in the fields for signs of
One commenter stated that inspecting a crop 30 days prior to harvest may not ensure that the crop is free from
We note that in addition to field inspections, which have been shown to be effective, the blueberries are inspected for signs of
To mitigate the risks associated with
One commenter stated that the use of methyl bromide to treat the blueberries for
Fumigation with methyl bromide is an established and proven treatment for blueberries and other fruits and vegetables that is routinely employed to successfully mitigate the risk of
A commenter recommended changes to the proposal to address the economic impacts on small business entities relative to the importation of blueberries from Morocco. Specifically, he suggested that we restrict the volume of blueberries imported from Morocco each year and guarantee the sales price
APHIS does not have the authority to set market price on commodities in the United States, nor can we place quotas or other limitations on the volume of fruits and vegetables imported into the United States.
In the preamble to the proposed rule, we included the requirement that “30 days prior to harvest, blueberries be inspected in the field by the NPPO of Morocco for signs of
In addition, we stated in proposed paragraph (c) that “the exportation of blueberries from the rejected place of production may resume in the next growing season if an investigation is conducted and APHIS and the NPPO of Morocco agree that appropriate remedial actions have been taken.” In reviewing this statement, we realized that, as worded, it is not clear what entity is responsible for conducting the investigation. While such an investigation must be conducted by the NPPO of Morocco, or by APHIS, or in combination, the point we wished to emphasize was that no exports of blueberries can resume from such places of production until APHIS and the NPPO of Morocco agree that appropriate remedial actions have been taken. For this reason, we are amending this statement in paragraph (c) to reflect our intended emphasis.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the changes discussed in this document.
In our December 2013 proposed rule, we proposed to add the conditions governing the importation of blueberries from Morocco as § 319.56-63. In this final rule, those conditions are added as § 319.56-69.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under
The analysis examines the expected economic impact for U.S small entities of a rule that will allow the importation of fresh blueberries from Morocco into the continental United States. Morocco expects to annually export 360,000 pounds of fresh blueberries to the continental United States. This quantity is equivalent to about one-tenth of 1 percent of U.S. domestic supply (utilized production plus imports minus exports) between 2007 and 2012. We expect shipments to arrive in July and August, during the latter part of the U.S. season. Any impact on U.S. producers is expected to be negligible, given the relatively small quantity that Morocco intends to export to the United States.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule allows blueberries to be imported into the continental United States from Morocco. State and local laws and regulations regarding blueberries imported under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Fresh fruit of highbush blueberry (
(a) The blueberries may be imported in commercial consignments only.
(b) The blueberries must be grown at places of production that are registered with the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Morocco.
(c) During the growing season, blueberries must be inspected in the field by the NPPO of Morocco for signs of
(d) Each consignment of blueberries must be treated in accordance with 7 CFR part 305 for
(e) Each consignment of blueberries must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Morocco with an additional declaration stating that the conditions of this section have been met, and that the consignment has been inspected prior to export from Morocco and found free of
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury; the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Final rule.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (collectively, the agencies) are adopting a final rule that revises the definition of eligible guarantee in the agencies' advanced approaches risk-based capital rule, adopted in the agencies' July 2013 regulatory capital rule (2013 capital rule). The final rule removes the requirement that an eligible guarantee be made by an eligible guarantor for purposes of calculating the risk-weighted assets of an exposure (other than a securitization exposure) under the advanced approaches risk-based capital rule as incorporated into the 2013 capital rule (advanced approaches). The change to the definition of eligible guarantee applies to all banks, savings associations, bank holding companies, and savings and loan holding companies that are subject to the advanced approaches.
This rule is effective on October 1, 2014. Any company subject to the rule may elect to adopt it before this date.
On May 1, 2014, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (collectively, the agencies) published in the
Among other changes, the 2013 capital rule amended the methodologies for calculating risk-weighted assets under the advanced approaches, as well as the standardized approach for regulatory capital in subpart D (standardized approach) of the 2013 capital rule, which is generally consistent with the methodologies for calculating risk-weighted assets established by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) through its international framework.
The definition of eligible guarantee provided that an eligible guarantee could be provided only by an eligible guarantor. The definition of eligible guarantor includes a sovereign, the Bank for International Settlements, the
Following the release of the 2013 capital rule, the agencies received comments raising concerns about the definition of eligible guarantee. Commenters noted that the revisions made to the definition of eligible guarantee changed the recognition of these guarantees for certain exposures under the advanced approaches wholesale framework. For example, several advanced approaches banking organizations
As explained in the proposal, the agencies did not intend for the revisions to the definition of eligible guarantee in the 2013 capital rule to prevent advanced approaches banking organizations from recognizing the risk-mitigation benefits of the aforementioned types of guarantees. The agencies believe that these guarantees should continue to qualify as credit risk mitigants for purposes of the advanced approaches because they provide banking organizations with credit enhancement with respect to their exposures.
On May 1, 2014, the agencies published in the
The agencies received two comment letters on the proposed change to the eligible guarantee definition, one from a trade association and the other from a monoline insurance company. The trade association fully supported the proposal, and urged timely adoption of the proposed rule without modification. The commenter also requested that the agencies provide banking organizations with the option to elect the early adoption of the proposed rule before its official effective date so that the amended definition would be available for public disclosures for advanced approaches banking organizations that have completed their parallel run and will publicly disclose their risk-based capital ratios determined using the advanced approaches beginning with the second quarter of 2014.
The monoline insurance company commented that the proposed revisions to the definition of eligible guarantee, and by extension the definition of eligible guarantor under the 2013 capital rule, should be further clarified and expanded under both the standardized approach and advanced approaches to include monoline insurance companies (monoline insurers) that meet certain conditions. According to the commenter, the agencies' definition of eligible guarantor in the 2013 capital rule intended to include monoline insurers that are subsidiaries of depository institution holding companies or nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act because these subsidiaries are subject to extensive supervisory and regulatory standards. The commenter further argued that expanding the definition to include monoline insurers could reduce systemic and prudential risks by reducing interconnectedness as well as reliance on guarantees from the public sector, such as guarantees from sovereigns and government-sponsored enterprises. The commenter also sought clarification as to whether, by virtue of the definition's exclusion of monoline insurers, the agencies also inadvertently excluded from the definition of eligible guarantor depository institution holding companies and nonbank systemically important financial institutions designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council.
The definition of eligible guarantor in the 2013 capital rule explicitly states that an insurance company engaged predominately in the business of providing credit protection (such as a monoline bond insurer or re-insurer) does not qualify as an eligible guarantor. As stated in the preamble to the 2013 capital rule, the agencies believe that guarantees issued by monoline insurers, including financial guaranty and private mortgage insurers, can exhibit significant wrong-way risk.
After carefully considering the comments the agencies are adopting as a final rule the eligible guarantee definition as proposed in the NPR. Under the final rule, an eligible guarantee must be in writing and also be either an unconditional guarantee or a contingent obligation of the U.S. government or its agencies, the enforceability of which is dependent upon some affirmative action on the
The final rule will be effective October 1, 2014; however, any advanced approaches banking organization may elect to adopt the requirements in the final rule before the effective date.
Subject to certain exceptions, 12 U.S.C. 4802(b) provides that new regulations and amendments to regulations prescribed by a Federal banking agency which impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on an insured depository institution shall take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter which begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form. The agencies note that this final rule does not impose any additional reporting or disclosure requirements. Instead, this final rule revises an existing requirement to remove a restriction on the recognition of guarantors for the purpose of calculating minimum risk-based capital requirements. Additionally, section 4802(b) permits persons who are subject to the Federal banking agency regulations to comply with a regulation before its effective date. Accordingly, the agencies will not object if an institution wishes to apply the provisions of this final rule beginning with the date it is published in the
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) (PRA), the agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The agencies have reviewed the final rule and determined that the rule does not introduce any new collection of information pursuant to the PRA.
Using the SBA's size standards effective on July 14, 2014, the OCC currently supervises approximately 1,200 small entities (361 Federal savings associations, 818 national banks, and 21 trust companies).
As described in the
The Board is providing a final regulatory flexibility analysis with respect to this final rule. As discussed above, this final rule would amend the definition of “eligible guarantee” in section 2 of Regulation Q (12 CFR part 217) for the purposes of calculating risk-weighted assets under the advanced approaches in Regulation Q (12 CFR part 217, subpart E). The Board received no public comments related to the initial Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis in the proposed rule from members of the general public or from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Thus,
The final rule would apply only to advanced approaches banking organizations, which, generally, are banking organizations with total consolidated assets of $250 billion or more, that have total consolidated on-balance sheet foreign exposure of $10 billion or more, are a subsidiary of an advanced approaches depository institution, or that elect to use the advanced approaches. Currently, no small top-tier bank holding company, top-tier savings and loan holding company, or state member bank is an advanced approaches banking organization, so there would be no additional projected compliance requirements imposed on small bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, or state member banks. The Board expects that any small bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, or state member banks that would be covered by this final rule would rely on their parent banking organization for compliance and would not bear additional costs.
The Board believes that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on small banking organizations supervised by the Board and therefore believes that there are no significant alternatives to the rule that would reduce the economic impact on small banking organizations supervised by the Board.
As of March 31, 2014, the FDIC supervised 3,604 small entities. As described in the
The FDIC certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small FDIC-supervised institutions.
The OCC has analyzed the final rule under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532). Under this analysis, the OCC considered whether the rule includes a Federal mandate 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 in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation). As detailed in the
This final rule does not increase the minimum capital requirements for any institutions subject to the OCC's risk-based capital rules. After comparing existing capital levels with these requirements, and considering the burden and other compliance costs associated with the changes, the OCC has determined that its final rule will not result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation). Accordingly, the OCC is not including a written statement to accompany this proposed rule.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The agencies have sought to present the final rule in a simple and straightforward manner, and did not receive any comments on the use of plain language.
Administrative practice and procedure, Capital, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Risk.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Capital, Federal Reserve System, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Capital Adequacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, State non-member banks.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 93a, 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 3907, 3909, 1831o, and 5412(b)(2)(B), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency amends part 3 of chapter I of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 93a, 161, 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1818, 1828(n), 1828 note, 1831n note, 1835, 3907, 3909, and 5412(b)(2)(B).
(1) Is written;
(2) Is either:
(i) Unconditional; or
(ii) A contingent obligation of the U.S. government or its agencies, the enforceability of which is dependent upon some affirmative action on the part of the beneficiary of the guarantee or a third party (for example, meeting servicing requirements);
(3) Covers all or a pro rata portion of all contractual payments of the obligated party on the reference exposure;
(4) Gives the beneficiary a direct claim against the protection provider;
(5) Is not unilaterally cancelable by the protection provider for reasons other than the breach of the contract by the beneficiary;
(6) Except for a guarantee by a sovereign, is legally enforceable against the protection provider in a jurisdiction where the protection provider has sufficient assets against which a judgment may be attached and enforced;
(7) Requires the protection provider to make payment to the beneficiary on the occurrence of a default (as defined in the guarantee) of the obligated party on the reference exposure in a timely manner without the beneficiary first having to take legal actions to pursue the obligor for payment;
(8) Does not increase the beneficiary's cost of credit protection on the guarantee in response to deterioration in the credit quality of the reference exposure;
(9) Is not provided by an affiliate of the national bank or Federal savings association, unless the affiliate is an insured depository institution, foreign bank, securities broker or dealer, or insurance company that:
(i) Does not control the national bank or Federal savings association; and
(ii) Is subject to consolidated supervision and regulation comparable to that imposed on depository institutions, U.S. securities broker-dealers, or U.S. insurance companies (as the case may be); and
(10) For purposes of §§ 3.141 through 3.145 and subpart D of this part, is provided by an eligible guarantor.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 217 of chapter II of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
12 U.S.C. 248(a), 321-338a, 481-486, 1462a, 1467a, 1818, 1828, 1831n, 1831o, 1831p-l, 1831w, 1835, 1844(b), 1851, 3904, 3906-3909, 4808, 5365, 5368, 5371.
(1) Is written;
(2) Is either:
(i) Unconditional, or
(ii) A contingent obligation of the U.S. government or its agencies, the enforceability of which is dependent upon some affirmative action on the part of the beneficiary of the guarantee or a third party (for example, meeting servicing requirements);
(3) Covers all or a pro rata portion of all contractual payments of the obligated party on the reference exposure;
(4) Gives the beneficiary a direct claim against the protection provider;
(5) Is not unilaterally cancelable by the protection provider for reasons other than the breach of the contract by the beneficiary;
(6) Except for a guarantee by a sovereign, is legally enforceable against the protection provider in a jurisdiction where the protection provider has sufficient assets against which a judgment may be attached and enforced;
(7) Requires the protection provider to make payment to the beneficiary on the occurrence of a default (as defined in the guarantee) of the obligated party on the reference exposure in a timely manner without the beneficiary first having to take legal actions to pursue the obligor for payment;
(8) Does not increase the beneficiary's cost of credit protection on the guarantee in response to deterioration in the credit quality of the reference exposure;
(9) Is not provided by an affiliate of the Board-regulated institution, unless the affiliate is an insured depository institution, foreign bank, securities broker or dealer, or insurance company that:
(i) Does not control the Board-regulated institution; and
(ii) Is subject to consolidated supervision and regulation comparable to that imposed on depository institutions, U.S. securities broker-dealers, or U.S. insurance companies (as the case may be); and
(10) For purposes of §§ 217.141 through 217.145 and subpart D of this part, is provided by an eligible guarantor.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 324 of chapter III of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1815(a), 1815(b), 1816, 1818(a), 1818(b), 1818(c), 1818(t), 1819(Tenth), 1828(c), 1828(d), 1828(i), 1828(n), 1828(o), 1831o, 1835, 3907, 3909, 4808; 5371; 5412; Pub. L. 102-233, 105 Stat. 1761, 1789, 1790 (12 U.S.C. 1831n note); Pub. L. 102-242, 105 Stat. 2236, 2355, as amended by Pub. L. 103-325, 108 Stat. 2160, 2233 (12 U.S.C. 1828 note); Pub. L. 102-242, 105 Stat. 2236, 2386, as amended by Pub. L. 102-550, 106 Stat. 3672, 4089 (12 U.S.C. 1828 note); Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, 1887 (15 U.S.C. 78o-7 note).
(1) Is written;
(2) Is either:
(i) Unconditional, or
(ii) A contingent obligation of the U.S. government or its agencies, the enforceability of which is dependent upon some affirmative action on the part of the beneficiary of the guarantee or a third party (for example, meeting servicing requirements);
(3) Covers all or a pro rata portion of all contractual payments of the obligated party on the reference exposure;
(4) Gives the beneficiary a direct claim against the protection provider;
(5) Is not unilaterally cancelable by the protection provider for reasons other than the breach of the contract by the beneficiary;
(6) Except for a guarantee by a sovereign, is legally enforceable against the protection provider in a jurisdiction
(7) Requires the protection provider to make payment to the beneficiary on the occurrence of a default (as defined in the guarantee) of the obligated party on the reference exposure in a timely manner without the beneficiary first having to take legal actions to pursue the obligor for payment;
(8) Does not increase the beneficiary's cost of credit protection on the guarantee in response to deterioration in the credit quality of the reference exposure;
(9) Is not provided by an affiliate of the FDIC-supervised institution, unless the affiliate is an insured depository institution, foreign bank, securities broker or dealer, or insurance company that:
(i) Does not control the FDIC-supervised institution; and
(ii) Is subject to consolidated supervision and regulation comparable to that imposed on depository institutions, U.S. securities broker-dealers, or U.S. insurance companies (as the case may be); and
(10) For purposes of §§ 324.141 through 324.145 and subpart D of this part, is provided by an eligible guarantor.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Correcting Amendments.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) is correcting final rules published in the
Effective on July 30, 2014.
Thomas Smith, Deputy Director, 202-418-5495,
In the
Further, the final rules in 17 CFR 30.7(g)(4) include an erroneous cross-reference to 17 CFR 30.7(h)(2), which should reference 17 CFR 30.7(l), and an erroneous cross-reference to 17 CFR 30.7(g)(2), which should reference 17 CFR 30.7(g)(3). Also, 17 CFR 30.7(g)(5) contains an erroneous cross-reference to 17 CFR 30.7(c)(1) and 30.7(c)(2), which should reference 30.7(g)(3) and 30.7(g)(4). Thus, the Commission is making a correcting amendment to 17 CFR 30.7(g)(4) and 30.7(g)(5) as discussed above.
Additionally, the final rules in 17 CFR 30.7(d)(1) erroneously omitted language that was contained in the proposed rulemaking published on November 14, 2012;
Finally, the final rules in 17 CFR 140.91(a)(12) include an erroneous cross-reference to 17 CFR 140.91(a)(8), which should reference 17 CFR 140.91(a)(12). Thus, the Commission is making a correcting amendment to 17 CFR 140.91(a)(12) that removes the erroneous cross-reference to 17 CFR 140.91(a)(8) and replaces it with a cross-reference to 17 CFR 140.91(a)(12).
Brokers, Commodity futures, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Commodity futures, Consumer protection, Currency, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies).
In consideration of the foregoing, 17 CFR parts 1, 30, and 140 are corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i, 6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 6o, 6p, 6r, 6s, 7, 7a-1, 7a-2, 7b, 7b-3, 8, 9, 10a, 12,
(d) * * *
(2) The futures commission merchant files written notice of the withdrawal or series of withdrawals, with the Commission and with its designated self-regulatory organization immediately after the chief executive officer, chief finance officer or other senior official as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section pre-approves the withdrawal or series of withdrawals. The written notice must:
(i) Be signed by the chief executive officer, chief finance officer or other senior official as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section that pre-approved the withdrawal, and give notice that the futures commission merchant has withdrawn or intends to withdraw more than 25 percent of its residual interest in segregated accounts holding futures customer funds;
(v) Contain a representation by the chief executive officer, chief finance officer or other senior official as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section that pre-approved the withdrawal, or series of withdrawals, that, after due diligence, to such person's knowledge and reasonable belief, the futures commission merchant remains in compliance with the segregation requirements after the withdrawal. The chief executive officer, chief finance officer or other senior official as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section must consider the daily segregation calculation as of the close of business on the previous business day and any other factors that may cause a material change in the futures commission merchant's residual interest since the close of business the previous business day, including known unsecured futures customer debits or deficits, current day market activity and any other withdrawals made from the futures accounts; and
(3) After making a withdrawal requiring the approval and notice required in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, and before the completion of its next daily segregated funds calculation, no futures commission merchant may make any further withdrawals from accounts holding futures customer funds, except to or for the benefit of futures customers, without, for each withdrawal, obtaining the approval required under paragraph (d)(1) of this section and filing a written notice in the manner specified under paragraph (d)(2) of this section with the Commission and its designated self-regulatory organization signed by the chief executive officer, chief finance officer, or other senior official. The written notice must:
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6, 6c, and 12a, unless otherwise noted.
(d)
(g) * * *
(4) A futures commission merchant must file written notice of the withdrawal or series of withdrawals that exceed 25 percent of the futures commission merchant's residual interest in 30.7 customer funds as computed under paragraph (l) of this section with the Commission and with its designated self-regulatory organization immediately after the chief executive officer, chief finance officer or other senior official as described in paragraph (g)(3) of this section pre-approves the withdrawal or series of withdrawals. The written notice must:
(v) Contain a representation by the chief executive officer, chief finance officer or other senior official as described in paragraph (g)(3) of this section that pre-approved the withdrawal, or series of withdrawals, that to such person's knowledge and reasonable belief, the futures commission merchant remains in compliance with the secured amount requirements after the withdrawal. The chief executive officer, chief finance officer or other appropriate senior official as described in paragraph (g)(3) of this section must consider the daily 30.7 calculation as of the close of business on the previous business day and any other factors that may cause a material change in the futures commission's residual interest since the close of business the previous business day, including known unsecured customer debits or deficits, current day market activity and any other withdrawals made from the 30.7 customer accounts; and
(5) After making a withdrawal requiring the approval and notice required in paragraphs (g)(3) and (4) of this section, and before the next daily secured amount calculation, no futures commission merchant may make any further withdrawals from accounts holding 30.7 customer funds, except to or for the benefit of 30.7 customers, without, for each withdrawal, obtaining the approval required under paragraph (g)(3) of this section and filing a written notice with the Commission under paragraph (g)(4)(vi) of this section and its designated self-regulatory organization signed by the chief executive officer, chief finance officer, or other senior official. The written notice must:
7 U.S.C. 2(a)(12), 12a, 13(c), 13(d), 13(e), and 16(b).
(a) * * *
(12) All functions reserved to the Commission in § 41.41 of this chapter. Any action taken pursuant to the delegation of authority under this paragraph (a)(12) shall be made with the concurrence of the General Counsel or, in his or her absence, a Deputy General Counsel.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone on Sister Bay in Sister Bay, WI for the Sister Bay Marinafest Ski Show. This zone will be enforced from 1 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. on August 30, 2014. This action is necessary and intended to ensure the safety of life on navigable waters during the ski show. During the aforementioned period, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in the safety zone. No person or vessel may enter the safety zone while it is being enforced without permission of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for safety zone (f)(14), Table 165.929, from 1 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. on August 30, 2014.
If you have questions on this document, call or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747-7148, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the Sister Bay Marinafest Ski Show safety zone listed as item (f)(14) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. The Sister Bay Marinafest Ski Show zone will encompass all waters of Sister Bay within an 800-foot radius of position 45°11′35.1″ N, 087°7′23.5″ W (NAD 83). This zone will be enforced from 1 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. on August 30, 2014.
All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or the on-scene representative to enter, move within, or exit the safety zone. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.
This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone on Green Bay in Sister Bay, WI for the Sister Bay Marinafest Fireworks. This zone will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on August 30, 2014. This action is necessary and intended to ensure the safety of life on navigable waters during a fireworks display. During the aforementioned periods, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in the safety zone. No person or vessel may enter the safety zone while it is being enforced without permission of the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for safety zone (f)(15), Table 165.929, from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on August 30, 2014.
If you have questions on this document, call or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747-7148, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the Sister Bay Marinafest Fireworks safety zone listed as item (f)(15) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. The Sister Bay Marinafest Fireworks display zone will encompass all waters of Sister Bay within an 800-foot radius of the launch vessel in approximate position 45°11′35.1″ N, 087°7′23.5″ W (NAD 83). This zone will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on August 30, 2014.
All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or the on-scene representative to enter, move within, or exit the safety zone. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.
This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation; correction.
On July 25, 2014, the Coast Guard published in the
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1333 will be enforced from 12 p.m. on July 29, 2014 through 6 p.m. on August 4, 2014, unless canceled sooner by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representative.
If you have questions on this notice, call or email LTJG Johnny Zeng, Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (206) 217-6323,
On July 25, 2014, the Coast Guard published in the
As stated in the
This notice corrects that error by publishing the name of the vessel, HMCS EDMONTON (NCSM 703), that is taking the place of the HMCS YELLOWKNIFE (NCSM 703) in the upcoming Seattle Seafair Fleet Week.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
This document corrects technical errors in the final rule that appeared in the August 19, 2013
This correcting amendment is effective July 29, 2014.
Ronisha Davis, (410) 786-6882.
In FR Doc. 2013-18956 which appeared in the August 19, 2013 final rule entitled “Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Fiscal Year 2014 Rates; Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers; Hospital Conditions of Participation; Payment Policies Related to Patient Status” (78 FR 50495) (hereinafter referred to as the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule) there was a technical error that is identified and corrected in the regulations text of this correcting amendment.
On page 50906 of the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule in our discussion of the change to the Medicare Hospital Conditions of Participation (CoPs) relating to the administration of pneumococcal vaccines, we stated that we were finalizing our proposal to remove the term “polyscaccharide” from the regulatory language at § 482.23(c). Therefore on page 50970 in the amendatory instructions for § 482.23, we stated that we were revising paragraph (c)(3). In stating that we were revising paragraph (c)(3), we revised the language to remove the term “polyscaccharide,” but we also removed paragraphs (c)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii). To correct this error, in the regulations text of this correcting amendment, we are adding the inadvertently removed paragraphs (that is, paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (c)(3)(iii)).
We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
In our view, this correcting amendment does not constitute a rule
In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest for providers to have access to the appropriate regulations text in as timely a manner as possible, and to ensure that the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects our CoPs relating to the administration of pneumococcal vaccines policy. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering our policy, but rather we are simply providing the corrected regulations text that we previously proposed, received comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correcting amendment is intended solely to ensure that the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects this policy. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.
Grant programs, Health, Hospitals, Medicaid, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 42 CFR chapter IV is corrected by making the following correcting amendments to part 482:
Secs. 1102, 1871, and 1881 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395hh, and 1395rr), unless otherwise noted.
(c) * * *
(3) With the exception of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, which may be administered per physician-approved hospital policy after an assessment of contraindications, orders for drugs and biologicals must be documented and signed by a practitioner who is authorized to write orders in accordance with State law and hospital policy, and who is responsible for the care of the patient as specified under § 482.12(c).
(i) If verbal orders are used, they are to be used infrequently.
(ii) When verbal orders are used, they must only be accepted by persons who are authorized to do so by hospital policy and procedures consistent with Federal and State law.
(iii) Orders for drugs and biologicals may be documented and signed by other practitioners not specified under § 482.12(c) only if such practitioners are acting in accordance with State law, including scope-of-practice laws, hospital policies, and medical staff bylaws, rules, and regulations.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule finalizes the amendments to Coast Guard regulations for certain lifesaving equipment, including launching appliances (winches and davits), release mechanisms, survival craft (lifeboats, inflatable liferafts, and inflatable buoyant apparatus), rescue boats, and automatic disengaging devices, which were published as an interim rule and amended by a second interim rule. Additionally, it finalizes the amendments to the requirements for Coast Guard-approved release mechanisms proposed in a supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). This final rule harmonizes the Coast Guard's design, construction, and performance standards for this lifesaving equipment with international standards, while providing for the use of qualified independent laboratories, instead of Coast Guard inspectors, during the approval process and for production inspections of certain types of lifesaving equipment.
This final rule is effective August 29, 2014. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on August 29, 2014.
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. George Grills, Commercial Regulations and Standards Directorate, Office of Design and Engineering Standards, Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-4), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1385, or email
The complete regulatory history of the Lifesaving Equipment rulemaking is summarized in Table 1 below.
On August 31, 2010, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization With International Standards” (2010 NPRM) to harmonize the Coast Guard's requirements for certain lifesaving equipment, including launching appliances (winches and davits), release mechanisms, survival craft (lifeboats, inflatable liferafts, and inflatable buoyant apparatuses), rescue boats, and automatic disengaging devices with international design, construction, and performance standards, and to expand the use of qualified independent laboratories, instead of Coast Guard inspectors, in the approval process and for production inspections. A complete discussion of these changes is available in the NPRM, published August 30, 2010.
On October 11, 2011, the Coast Guard published an interim rule titled “Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization With International Standards; Interim Rule” (2011 IR) making effective the changes proposed in the NPRM.
Concurrently on October 11, 2011, the Coast Guard published a supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking (2011 SNPRM) proposing amendments to the portion of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) modified by the 2011 IR regarding inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses.
On November 26, 2012, the Coast Guard published a second SNPRM (2012 SNPRM) proposing amendments to the portion of the CFR modified by the 2011 IR regarding release mechanisms.
The Coast Guard is making final the 2011 interim rule with some changes. The only changes are those made by the 2012 IR, and the 2012 SNPRM
The Coast Guard is charged with ensuring that lifesaving equipment used on vessels subject to inspection by the United States meets specific design, construction, and performance standards.
In the 2012 SNPRM, amendments were proposed to the Coast Guard's standards for release mechanisms found in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.133 to implement current SOLAS requirements for lifeboat release mechanisms. The Coast Guard also proposed amendments to subpart 160.115 to clarify the winch drum design requirements, and also proposed technical amendments to correct non-substantive errors in 46 CFR part 160, subparts 160.133, 160.135, and 160.156, and in 46 CFR part 164.
Current requirements for lifeboat release mechanisms are the IMO standards referenced by Chapter III of SOLAS. Those IMO standards are the “International Life-saving Appliance Code,” IMO Resolution MSC.48(66), as amended (IMO LSA Code), and the “Revised recommendation on testing of life-saving appliances,” IMO Resolution MSC.81(70), as amended (Revised recommendation on testing). The IMO updates these standards by adopting MSC Resolutions which promulgate amendments to these standards. The 2011 IR incorporated by reference all MSC Resolutions affecting release mechanisms adopted at the time the 2010 NPRM was published.
On May 20, 2011, IMO adopted two new MSC Resolutions further amending the IMO LSA Code and the Revised recommendation on testing: IMO Resolution MSC.320(89), “Adoption of amendments to the International Life-saving Appliance (LSA) Code,” and IMO Resolution MSC.321(89), “Adoption of amendments to the Revised Recommendation on Testing of Life-saving Appliances (Resolution MSC.81(70)), as amended.”
Resolution MSC.320(89) amends the design and performance requirements for release mechanisms in the IMO LSA Code, which entered into force on January 1, 2013. The amendments include specific requirements for increased hook stability, corrosion-resistance, and additional safety features. Resolution MSC.321(89) specifies revisions to the prototype testing of release mechanisms supporting the amendments to the IMO LSA Code's Revised recommendation on testing, which entered into force on January 1, 2013.
The Coast Guard proposed in the 2012 SNPRM to revise subpart 160.133 to incorporate by reference IMO Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89). These changes affect release mechanisms approved under approval series 160.133, applying new design, performance, and prototype testing requirements, as set forth in IMO Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89). The changes also affect davit-launched lifeboats approved under subpart 160.135, and SOLAS rescue boats and fast rescue boats approved under subpart 160.156 (other than those fitted with automatic release hooks under approval series 160.170). These lifeboats and rescue boats are required to have a release mechanism approved under subpart 160.133 as revised by this final rule. However, davit-launched lifeboats, SOLAS rescue boats, and fast rescue boats already installed prior to the implementation of this final rule are not affected.
Beyond the obligations to adopt the changes to the IMO LSA Code and Revised recommendation on testing as a signatory to the SOLAS convention, the Coast Guard desires to incorporate by reference the amendments in IMO Resolutions MSC.320(89) and MSC.321(89) because they provide higher standards of safety and performance than those of the existing requirements incorporated by reference in 46 CFR 160.133-5. Further, for manufacturers, harmonization with current international standards will facilitate marketing of their products internationally.
The United States actively participated in the negotiations that led to the development of these IMO standards and conducted a series of outreach sessions with the public. The Coast Guard considers these IMO standards to represent the best available standards for the design and performance of release mechanisms. In order to facilitate international commerce with other contracting governments to SOLAS that follow IMO standards, and to achieve the benefits of the increased safety of adhering to these IMO standards, the Coast Guard, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 3306, considers them to be appropriate for lifeboats and rescue boats subject to inspection by the United States.
A complete discussion of these changes is available in the 2012 SNPRM.
In this final rule, the Coast Guard is making final the 2011 IR with some changes. The changes are those made by the 2012 IR, and the 2012 SNPRM amendments to 46 CFR parts 160 and 164. The rest of the 2011 IR remains the same.
The Coast Guard received two comments in response to the 2012 SNPRM.
The first commenter was generally supportive of the suggested changes, but noted that the IMO Standardized Life-Saving Appliance Evaluation and Test Report Forms published in IMO MSC Circular 980 have not been updated since they were originally issued in 2001.
The Coast Guard acknowledges that the standardized IMO forms are out of date. However, the forms were developed by the IMO to provide guidance on how to conduct the proscribed tests, how to record data, and how to report the results, and are within IMO's control to change. Use of these forms is not required. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that the test reports submitted for approval appropriately document both the tests performed and the results. Therefore, no changes to the 2012 SNPRM were made based on this comment.
The second commenter applauded the Coast Guard's actions to harmonize U.S. regulations with international standards, but expressed concern that the IMO Resolutions incorporated by reference, specifically Resolution MSC.321(89), and the resolution that it amends (MSC.81(70)), are written in non-mandatory language. The commenter requested clarification on how the Coast Guard will apply the provisions of an otherwise non-mandatory document when it is referenced in a regulatory requirement.
The Revised recommendation on testing, as amended by Resolution MSC.321(89), sets forth requirements for
Based on the above discussion of the two comments received, no changes were made to the regulatory text proposed in the 2012 SNPRM. All comments received on the NPRM and the 2011 SNPRM were addressed in the 2011 and 2012 IRs, respectively.
The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in 46 CFR 160.133-5(c)(6) and (c)(7) for incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the material are available from the sources listed in paragraph (a) of that section.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on several of these statutes or E.O.s.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the 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 is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under E.O. 12866. Nonetheless, we developed an analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule to ascertain its probable impacts on industry. A final regulatory assessment follows.
As this regulatory assessment is based on the regulatory analyses contained in the previously published documents and supporting documentation for the 2011 IR, the 2012 IR, and the 2012 SNPRM, the regulatory assessment below is only a summation of the analyses performed in those documents.
The 2011 IR became effective November 10, 2011. As a result, this final rule does not add any incremental costs or benefits to that IR. This summary of the 2011 IR provides background into the regulatory history surrounding the final rule.
In the 2011 IR, which promulgated the requirements set forth in the 2010 NPRM, the Coast Guard amended 46 CFR part 160 to harmonize its regulations with IMO standards governing certain types of lifesaving equipment. The Coast Guard also allowed the use of independent laboratories under Coast Guard approval procedures for certain types of lifesaving equipment, including requiring the use of independent laboratories at certain stages of the approval procedures, instead of Coast Guard personnel to perform these inspections and witness these tests. We expected that the changes to harmonize existing regulations with international standards would have no additional costs for manufacturers of lifesaving equipment. In order for their lifesaving equipment to be used on vessels for international voyages from any nation that is signatory to SOLAS, equipment manufacturers must comply with the international standards for lifesaving equipment established by SOLAS. We further expected that the 2011 IR reflected existing industry practices adopted in response to these international standards governing the performance of certain types of lifesaving equipment.
We expected the changes requiring the use of independent laboratories, instead of Coast Guard personnel, would result in additional costs for manufacturers of certain types of lifesaving equipment. The Coast Guard did not have a regulatory mechanism to charge for any step in the approval process for lifesaving equipment. The use of independent laboratories required by the 2011 IR created a new cost for manufacturers of lifesaving equipment. However, we expected that the costs of inspections by independent laboratories would be partially offset by an overall reduction in the number of inspections, made possible through the coordination of independent laboratories. Manufacturers, as a result of the 2011 IR, are able to schedule inspections and testing for independent laboratories acting on behalf of multiple nations, including the United States, rather than requiring separate Coast Guard inspections and testing. This coordinated use of independent laboratories avoids multiple inspections and testing of the same equipment.
Data obtained from the Coast Guard Maritime Information Exchange indicated that the population affected by the 2011 IR included eight U.S. manufacturers. We estimated the annual costs to manufacturers for using independent laboratories was approximately $130,000 for U.S. firms, in 2008 dollars. After converting to 2012 dollars, the cost comes to $138,597.
The other changes stemming from the 2011 IR, not resulting from harmonization with international standards or use of independent laboratories, updated Coast Guard regulations to reflect current industry practice or to incorporate newer versions of existing standards, and were determined to have no costs. These included an amendment specifying the attachment point for sea anchors to liferafts, the addition of a new subpart in 46 CFR part 164 addressing resins used in the construction of lifeboats and rescue boats, and incorporating the use of equivalent international standards as an alternative to national consensus standards.
The benefits of the 2011 IR included compliance with U.S. obligations as a signatory nation to SOLAS, and the removal of inconsistencies between international standards and the Coast Guard's regulations. In addition, the rule also provided possible savings for manufacturers from coordination efficiencies for inspections that were not quantified in the IR. It also increased efficiency for the Coast Guard by providing flexibility in assigning its human resources, particularly those stationed at overseas Coast Guard offices.
The 2011 IR's provisions relating to third-party inspections have already been enacted, and the final rule makes no further modifications to these provisions. Therefore, this final rule does not impose new costs or benefits.
The 2012 IR became effective March 22, 2012. As a result, this final rule does not add any incremental costs or benefits to that IR. This summary of the 2012 IR provides background to the regulatory history surrounding the final rule.
In the 2012 IR, which implemented the requirements set forth in the 2011 SNPRM, the Coast Guard amended the 2011 IR addressing lifesaving equipment to harmonize Coast Guard regulations for inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses with recently adopted international standards affecting capacity requirements for such lifesaving equipment. Having found no additional information (including public comments) that changed our findings in the 2011 SNPRM, we adopted the assessment in the 2011 SNPRM for the 2012 IR as final.
The 2012 IR addressed the change in the international standard for occupant weight used in testing equipment to establish the rated capacity of inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses by revising the occupant weight or “assumed average occupant mass” from the previous 75 kg (approximately 165 pounds)
While the 2012 IR required manufacturers to conduct prototype and production tests for inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses manufactured on or after March 22, 2012, using the new occupant weight standard, it limited retesting of currently approved equipment manufactured to only liferafts then currently rated for six occupants. The 2012 IR did not apply to liferafts currently in service aboard U.S. vessels. These were grandfathered in. As a result, no vessel incurred replacement costs for liferafts based on the 2012 IR. Therefore, only manufacturers were impacted. A summary of changes to the baseline testing requirements is shown in Table 3. It should be noted that Table 3 only applies to manufacturers of liferafts, not vessels carrying liferafts.
As shown in Table 3, manufacturers of SOLAS inflatable liferafts approved under subpart 160.151 and manufactured on or after March 22, 2012, were allowed the option of either retesting using the new occupant weight standard or requesting certification for a lower rated occupancy (adjusted for the new occupant weight standard) based on the certification testing submitted for their current approval.
We expected that the principal cost impact for manufacturers of SOLAS liferafts would be for currently approved inflatable liferafts whose rated capacity is six occupants using the current weight standard of 75 kg. Since SOLAS requires that inflatable liferafts have a minimum capacity of six occupants, any SOLAS liferaft currently approved for six occupants had to be retested under the new occupant weight standard in order to retain approval.
We indicated in the 2012 IR that there were three U.S. manufacturers of in-scope liferafts. These three firms manufactured a total of five different models of liferafts with three of the models having a capacity of six occupants.
We estimated the total cost to industry to retest all current SOLAS liferaft models manufactured by U.S. firms to be $5,400. This figure is in 2011 dollars.
The principal benefit of the 2012 IR was the protection of life at sea by establishing capacity standards for inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses, reflecting a global increase in mariner weights. Additionally, the 2012 IR ensured compliance with internationally applicable standards for SOLAS and adopted by the IMO.
This final rule does not change the requirements in the 2012 IR discussed above, and it does not add additional costs or benefits related to the 2012 IR.
The 2012 SNPRM proposed amendments to the regulations promulgated by the 2011 IR concerning release mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats with recently adopted international standards affecting design, performance, and testing for such lifesaving equipment. It also proposed to clarify the requirements concerning grooved drums in launching appliance winches. The 2012 SNPRM had three components that could potentially have cost impacts. The first component involved amendments made to the IMO LSA Code by the IMO MSC regarding release mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats. The second component was a rewording made to 46 CFR 160.115-7(b)(5)(i) with respect to the acceptance of non-grooved winch drums as an alternative to grooved drums on launching appliance winches. The third component dealt with the need for applications for pre-approval review for Certificates of Approval.
The first component, the set of amendments made by the IMO's MSC to design, performance and testing requirements for release mechanisms, incorporated into the CFR, impacted one U.S. manufacturer of release mechanisms. That one manufacturer had to design, manufacture and test a release mechanism that fulfilled these new amendments. However, that single manufacturer designed, tested, and began to manufacture, market and sell release mechanisms that fulfilled the new requirements before the 2012 SNPRM became effective on January 1, 2013.
If we had assumed the Coast Guard had promulgated the 2012 SNPRM in the absence of an IMO amendment, there would have been a cost. The single U.S. manufacturer would have experienced fixed testing and design costs that it would not otherwise have incurred.
The second component, the rewording made to 46 CFR 160.115-7(b)(5)(i), had no impact on the design, manufacturing or testing of release mechanism, or on any process involving government approval. The rewording only was intended to make it clear to the public that non-grooved winch drums were acceptable as well as grooved winch drums. This wording clarified the Coast Guard's previous practice of accepting both.
The third component was a requirement for manufacturers to provide the Coast Guard with an application for pre-approval review for certificates of approval for the new release mechanisms. However, as already stated in this preamble, the single U.S. manufacturer phased in production of release mechanisms that fulfilled the new IMO requirements prior to January 1, 2013, and independently of whether the Coast Guard put forth the requirements in the 2012 SNPRM.
The incorporation of the IMO's new amendments to the LSA Code into the CFR harmonized U.S. standards with the IMO's standards. This harmonization was necessary for two reasons. First, it was needed for the United States to comply with its treaty obligations as a signatory to SOLAS. By harmonizing Coast Guard requirements for release mechanisms for lifeboats and rescue boats, the United States now has the same requirements as the international standards established by the IMO LSA Code. Secondly, the harmonization was necessary to clarify requirements and remove inconsistencies between the requirements for SOLAS compliance and parts of Title 46 that regulate release mechanisms on lifeboats and rescue boats.
One benefit of U.S. harmonization with international standards is that it allows the domestic manufacturer, as well as any future manufacturers, of in-scope equipment to sell the equipment on the international market and to do so in a more efficient manner. Adoption of the international standards, and Coast Guard inspection and certification of the equipment in line with those standards,
Harmonization also enables vessels with the in-scope equipment to operate in international waters and ports without fear of detention or fines. Without the adoption of the international standards, these vessels would be in violation of IMO requirements. There are 170 members
The 2012 SNPRM could also have affected U.S. vessel owners or operators of U.S. vessels that were required to carry lifeboats and/or rescue boats, which would need to be equipped with release mechanisms that fulfilled the new requirements. However, only those release mechanisms purchased after January 1, 2013, would need to be replaced. If release mechanisms meeting both the pre-2012 SNPRM and post-2012 SNPRM requirements were available, the Coast Guard assumes vessel owners or operators would purchase the less expensive of the two, which were those mechanisms that met the pre-2012 SNRPM requirements (i.e., pre-January 1, 2013). As stated above, however, the one U.S.-based supplier of in-scope, galvanized steel release mechanisms stopped manufacturing them and began manufacturing and selling release mechanisms that fulfilled the new IMO LSA Code amendments proposed in the 2012 SNPRM. This U.S. manufacturer was the only manufacturer of galvanized steel (or its regulatory equivalent) in the world.
The 2012 SNPRM is adopted without change in this final rule. The Coast Guard does not expect a change in the benefits or costs between the 2012 SNPRM and this final rule.
As stated previously, the 2011 and 2012 IRs have already been implemented. The 2012 SNPRM had no quantifiable costs or benefits and is being implemented in this final rule with no additional changes being made that may impact either costs or benefits. Thus, this final rule has no incremental costs or benefits associated with it. The aggregate costs and benefits of the 2011 IR, 2012 IR, and the 2012 SNPRM are only being presented to provide the reader with perspective on the previous rulemakings.
This section aggregates the monetized costs and qualitative benefits relating to the 2011 IR, 2012 IR, and the 2012 SNPRM. The costs and benefits are each aggregated in Tables 6 and 7. In Table 6, we aggregate the total nominal 10-year costs at $1,391,482. Discounted, at 7 percent, the 10-year total came to $978,599 ($139,331 on an annualized basis) and, at 3 percent, to $1,187,612 ($139,224 on an annualized basis). The 2012 SNPRM had no monetized costs, and it is not included in the table.
It should be stressed that this final rule does not add additional costs to those already established by the previous phases of this rulemaking. Additionally, we received no public comments or other information suggesting any change was required.
The benefits from the 2011 IR, 2012 IR, and the 2012 SNPRM are summarized in Table 7. The final rule does not change any of the amendments discussed above relating to benefits, nor does it add or delete any benefits. Therefore, the final rule will not change the benefits from the 2011 IR, 2012 IR and 2012 SNPRM.
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.
A brief summary of the analyses performed for the 2011 IR, 2012 IR and 2012 SNPRM for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is provided below. Each of these analyses is discussed separately in its own section. The discussions are only intended as a brief synopsis. In-depth analysis can be found on the docket.
As discussed in the “Summary of the 2011 IR” in Section VII.A of this preamble, we determined that six of the eight U.S. firms manufacturing in-scope lifesaving equipment were classified as small entities under the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards. We estimated the annual costs to use independent laboratories was less than 0.5 percent of annual revenue for five of the six small entities, and less than 1.25 percent of annual revenue for the other. However, these estimates do not include adjustments for manufacturer savings from the coordinated use of independent laboratories, which would avoid multiple inspections and tests of the same equipment. This adjustment could not be made, as there was no data on which to base an estimate, but its omission should only serve to inflate costs. Based on available information, the Coast Guard certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the 2011 IR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As discussed in the “Summary of the 2012 IR” in Section VII.A of this preamble, the 2012 IR identified only one material cost, and that was associated with testing three different inflatable liferafts that had the capacity to hold exactly six passengers in order to determine if they could meet the new weight standards of 82.5 kg instead of 75 kg. This cost was estimated at $1,876
The Coast Guard identified three manufacturers that could be considered small entities according to SBA small business requirements.
As discussed in the “Summary of the 2012 SNPRM Regulatory Assessment” in Section VII.A of this preamble, there were no costs estimated as a result of the implementation of the 2012 SNPRM. The single U.S. manufacturing firm that produced the in-scope release mechanisms had stopped manufacturing the release mechanisms that fulfilled older IMO requirements and began manufacturing only those release mechanisms that fulfilled the new IMO requirements prior to January 1, 2013 (the date the new IMO requirements took effect). Only those release mechanisms that fulfill the IMO requirements are available on the
Therefore, the Coast Guard certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The final rule does not amend the 2011 IR, 2012 IR or 2012 SNPRM in any manner that may add costs and does not add any new requirements that we find to add costs. Therefore, 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.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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.
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).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis is explained below.
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled that all of the categories covered for inspected vessels in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations are within fields foreclosed from regulation by the States. (
This rule amends regulations that establish the approval process for lifesaving equipment designs, oversight of prototype construction, prototype testing, and production monitoring of equipment for use on U.S. vessels. As these regulations are promulgated under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3306, they fall within fields foreclosed from regulation by State or local governments. Therefore, this final rule is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
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 E.O. 12630 (“Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights”).
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 (“Civil Justice Reform”) to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045 (“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks”). This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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.
We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and the Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This rule uses technical standards other than voluntary consensus standards:
• International Life-Saving Appliance Code, (IMO Resolution MSC.48(66)), as amended by IMO Resolution MSC.320(89);
• IMO Resolution MSC.81(70), Revised recommendation on testing of life-saving appliances, as amended by IMO Resolution MSC.321(89).
The sections that reference these standards, and the locations where these standards are available, are listed in 46 CFR 160.133-5. They are used because we did not find voluntary consensus standards that are applicable to this rule.
Additionally, this rule finalizes technical standards, some of which are voluntary consensus standards, which were addressed in the 2011 and 2012 IRs. Please see 76 FR 62962 and 77 FR 9859 for information on these standards.
Section 608 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-281) adds new section 2118 to 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II (Vessels and Seamen), Chapter 21 (General). New section 2118(a) sets forth requirements for standards established for approved equipment required on vessels subject to 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II (Vessels and Seamen), Part B (Inspection and Regulation of Vessels). Those standards must be “(1) based on performance using the best available technology that is economically achievable; and (2) operationally practical.”
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 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded 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 section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a), (d) and (e) and under section 6a of the “Appendix to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy” (67 FR 48244, July 23, 2002). This rule involves regulations which are editorial, regulations concerning equipping of vessels, regulations concerning equipment approval and carriage requirements, and regulations concerning vessel operation safety standards. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Marine safety, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Fire prevention, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard adopts the interim rule amending 46 CFR parts 108, 117, 133, 160, 164, 180, and 199, which published at 76 FR 62962 on October 11, 2011, as a final rule without change, except as amended by the interim rule published at 77 FR 9859 on February 12, 2012, with the following changes:
46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703 and 4302; E.O. 12234; 45 FR 58801; 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) Winch drums must either be grooved or otherwise designed to wind the falls evenly on and off each drum.
(d) * * *
(4)
(c) * * *
(6) Annex 4 to MSC 89/25, Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its Eighty-Ninth Session, “Resolution MSC.320(89), Adoption of Amendments to the International Life-Saving Appliance (LSA) Code,” (adopted May 20, 2011), IBR approved for §§ 160.133-3, 160.133-5(c)(6), 160.133-7(d)(1), 160.133-7(b)(8), and 160.133-7(b)(9) (“Resolution MSC.320(89)”).
(7) Annex 5 to MSC 89/25, Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its Eighty-Ninth Session, “Resolution MSC.321(89), Adoption of Amendments to the Revised Recommendation on Testing of Life-Saving Appliances (Resolution MSC.81(70)),” (adopted May 20, 2011), IBR approved for §§ 160.133-5(c)(7), 160.133-7(a)(2), and 160.133-13(d)(2) (“Resolution MSC.321(89)”).
(b) * * *
(3)
(e) * * *
(2)
(e) * * *
(2)
46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 4302; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; correction.
The Federal Communications Commission published a document in the
The Commission will publish a document in the
Cindy Spiers, Satellite Division, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554, at (202) 418-1593 or via email at
In FR Doc. 2014-02213 appearing on page 8308 in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; possession limit reduction.
Beginning August 5, 2014, the northern red hake possession limit is reduced to the incidental possession limit for the remainder of the 2014 fishing year.
Effective at 0001 hr local time, August 5, 2014, through 2400 hr local time April 30, 2015.
Jason Berthiaume, (978) 281-9177.
The regulations at § 648.86(d)(4)(i) require that, if the NMFS Greater Atlantic Region Administrator (Regional Administrator) projects that if the total allowable landings (TAL) trigger has been landed for a small-mesh multispecies stock, the Regional Administrator shall reduce the possession limit for that stock to the incidental possession limit for the remainder of the fishing year. The incidental possession limit for northern red hake is 400 lb (181.44 kg).
The 2014 fishing year northern red hake TAL is 199,077 lb (90,300 kg) and the TAL trigger is 45 percent, which is 89,585 lb (40,635.07 kg). Based on dealer, vessel trip report, and other available information, NMFS has projected that, as of August 5, 2014, 45 percent of the available 2014 TAL for northern red hake have been landed. Therefore, effective 0001 hr, August 5, 2014, the possession limit for northern red hake is reduced to the incidental possession limit of 400 lb (181.44 kg). This incidental possession limit will be in effect through the remainder of the fishing year, which ends April 30, 2015.
Vessels that have declared a trip through the vessel monitoring system (VMS) or interactive voice response system, and crossed the VMS demarcation line, prior to August 5, 2014, are not be subject to the incidental limit for that trip, and, may complete the trip under the previous higher possession limit of 5,000 lb (2,268 kg).
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
NMFS finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable. This action reduces the northern red hake possession limit to the incidental level of 400 lb. The regulations at § 648.86(d)(4)(i) require that, if the NMFS projects that if the TAL trigger has been landed for a small-mesh multispecies stock, NMFS must reduce the possession limit for that stock to the incidental possession limit for the remainder of the fishing year. The whiting fishery opened for the 2014 fishing year on May 1, 2014. Data indicating that 45 percent of the northern red hake TAL is projected to be reached only recently became available. If implementation of this closure is delayed to solicit prior public comment, northern red hake landings limits for this fishing year will likely be exceeded, thereby undermining the conservation objectives of the FMP. NMFS further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reasons stated above.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2010-21-07 for Eurocopter France (now Airbus Helicopters) Model AS350B3 and EC130B4 helicopters. AD 2010-21-07 currently requires inspecting the pilot's and co-pilot's throttle twist for proper operation of the contactors. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2010-21-07, include additional inspection procedures, and revise the inspection interval. These proposed actions are intended to prevent unintended touchdown during a practice autorotation at a flight-idle power setting, damage to the helicopter, and injury to occupants.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 29, 2014.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
George Schwab, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
On September 29, 2010, we issued AD 2010-21-07, Amendment 39-16467 (75 FR 63052, October 14, 2010), for Eurocopter France (now Airbus Helicopters) Model AS350B3 and EC130B4 helicopters with certain equipment installed. AD 2010-21-07 requires repetitively inspecting the pilot's and co-pilot's throttle twist for proper operation of the contactors, which provide for changes between the “IDLE” and “FLIGHT' positions of the throttle twist grip control, by complying with Eurocopter's service information. AD 2010-21-07 was prompted by a dormant failure of one of the two contactors 53Ka or 53Kb following the installation of modification (MOD) 073254 on Model AS350B3 helicopters and the installation of MOD 073773 on Model EC130B4 helicopters. Those actions were intended to prevent an unintended touchdown to the ground during a practice autorotation at a flight-idle power setting, damage to the helicopter, and injury to the occupants.
Since we issued AD 2010-21-07, Amendment 39-16467 (75 FR 63052, October 14, 2010), Eurocopter designed MOD 074263 to address the unsafe condition, and we issued two letters approving MOD 074263 as an Alternate Method of Compliance for AD 2010-21-07. A subsequent accident occurred involving power loss in flight of a Model AS350B3 helicopter with MOD 074263 installed. As a result, Eurocopter revised its service information and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA Emergency AD No. 2013-0191-E, dated August 22, 2013. EASA advises the switches in the engine “IDLE” or “FLIGHT” control system could be affected by the corrosive effects of a salt-laden atmosphere, which could lead to engine
This NPRM would retain the repetitive inspections in AD 2010-21-07 but would also include the additional inspection requirements in the Eurocopter service information. Also, since we issued AD 2010-21-07, Eurocopter France has changed its name to Airbus Helicopters. This NPRM reflects that change.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We reviewed one co-published Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) containing 3 numbers: No. 05.00.61, Revision 2, dated August 13, 2013, for Model AS350B3 helicopters; No. 05.00.41, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2013, for the non-FAA type-certificated Model AS550C3 helicopter; and No. 05A009, Revision 2, dated August 13, 2013, for Model EC130B4 helicopters. The EASB describes procedures for a functional check and installation of a protection for micro-contacts 53Ka, 53Kb, and 65K (IDLE/FLIGHT mode). EASA classified this EASB as mandatory and issued EASA Emergency AD No. 2013-0191-E, dated August 22, 2013, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.
This proposed AD would retain the inspection requirements of AD 2010-21-07 (78 FR 63052, October 14, 2010) but would also include additional requirements to inspect for proper operation of contactors 53Ka and 53Kb and the pilot and copilot throttle twist grip controls for proper functioning. This proposed AD would require the inspections to be done at intervals not to exceed 300 hours time-in-service (TIS), compared to the 600-hour TIS intervals required by AD 2010-21-07. Issuing this proposed AD would also invalidate the two letters dated December 19, 2012, and July 18, 2013, approving AMOCs for AD 2010-21-07.
This AD requires the inspections to be done at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS, and the EASA AD applies different intervals based on certain conditions.
We consider this AD interim action. The design approval holder is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this proposed AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 517 helicopters of U.S. Registry.
We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work hour. It would take about 4 work hours for the inspections and any necessary maintenance, for a total cost of $340 per helicopter and $175,780 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model AS350B3 and EC130B4 helicopters, certificated in any category, with the ARRIEL 2B1 engine with the two-channel Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) and with new twist grip modification (MOD) 073254 for the Model AS350B3 helicopter or MOD 073773 for the Model EC130B4 helicopter, installed.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of one of the two contactors, 53Ka or 53Kb, which can prevent switching from “IDLE” mode to “FLIGHT” mode during autorotation training making it impossible to recover from the practice autorotation and compelling the pilot to continue the autorotation to the ground. This condition could result in unintended touchdown to the
This AD supersedes AD 2010-21-07, Amendment 39-16467 (75 FR 63052, October 14, 2010).
We must receive comments by September 29, 2014.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
Before the next practice autorotation or on or before 100 hours time-in-service (TIS), whichever occurs first, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS, inspect the wiring, perform an insulation test, inspect the pilot and copilot throttle twist grip controls, and test the pilot and copilot throttle twist grip controls for proper functioning by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.1 through 3.B.6, of Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 05.00.61, Revision 2, dated August 13, 2013, for Model AS350B3 helicopters or EASB No. 05A009, Revision 2, dated August 13, 2013, for Model EC130B4 helicopters, as appropriate for your model helicopter.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: George Schwab, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Emergency AD No. 2013-0191-E, dated August 22, 2013. You may view the EASA AD at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 76 Engine Controls.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-09-07, for certain Airbus Model A319-111, -112, and -132 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214 and -232 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -211, -212, and -231 airplanes. AD 2012-09-07 currently requires performing an electrical bonding test between the gravity fill re-fuel adaptor and the top skin panels on the left-hand and right-hand wings, and if necessary performing a general visual inspection for corrosion of the component interface and adjacent area, and repairing the gravity fuel adaptor if any corrosion is found. Since we issued AD 2012-09-07, we have determined that more airplanes are subject to the identified unsafe condition due to the installation of an incorrect repair intended to address the identified unsafe condition. This proposed AD would add airplanes to the applicability in AD 2012-09-07, and would require inspecting those airplanes to determine if a repair was done, and doing the electrical bonding test and corrective action if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct corrosion and improper bonding, which, in combination with a lightning strike in this area, could create a source of ignition in a fuel tank, resulting in a fire or explosion, and consequent loss of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 15, 2014.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1405; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On April 30, 2012, we issued AD 2012-09-07, Amendment 39-17042 (77 FR 28238, May 14, 2012). AD 2012-09-07 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A319-111, -112, and -132 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214 and -232 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -211, -212, and -231 airplanes.
Since we issued AD 2012-09-07, Amendment 39-17042 (77 FR 28238, May 14, 2012), the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0277R1, dated December 4, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Cases of corrosion findings were reported on the overwing refueling aperture (used to fill the fuel tank by gravity) on the wing top skin. The reported corrosion was on the mating surface of the aperture flange, underneath the refuel adaptor. Corrosion findings have been repaired on a case by case basis in accordance with approved data.
For certain aeroplanes, the repair provided by Airbus contained instructions to apply primer coating on the mating surface. Since doing those repairs, it has been found that this primer coating may prevent proper electrical bonding provision between the overwing refueling cap adaptor and the wing skin.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could, in combination with a lightning strike in this area, create a source of ignition in a fuel tank, possibly resulting in a fire or explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane. To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2011-0034 [
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, EASA has been made aware that some operators may inadvertently have applied an Airbus repair, approved for only one aeroplane MSN, to other aeroplanes, without requesting a revision of the repair to add aeroplanes, or to notify Airbus of such action(s). Consequently, the condition addressed by EASA AD 2011-0034 could affect more aeroplanes than initially determined.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0034, which is superseded, and expands the Applicability to all A320 family aeroplane Models, all MSN.
This [EASA] AD has been revised to amend and clarify paragraph (3) and to correct an error in the Type/Model designations on page 1, where the A318 was inadvertently omitted.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD.
The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
In an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to the FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
One commenter to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.”
This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this proposed AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Airbus's EASA DOA.
The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the
This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions that are required by AD 2012-09-07, Amendment 39-17042 (77 FR 28238, May 14, 2012), and retained in this proposed AD take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2012-09-07 is $170 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $72,335, or $170 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 11 work-hours, for a cost of $935 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by September 15, 2014.
This AD replaces AD 2012-09-07, Amendment 39-17042 (77 FR 28238, May 14, 2012).
(1) This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers, except airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD.
(2) Airplanes that have been delivered from production with Airbus Modification 38209 (Removal of the Outer Wing Refueling Aperture) and without Airbus Modification 38206 (Re-introduction of the Outer Wing Refueling Aperture) are not affected by the requirements of this AD.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by more airplanes being affected due to inadvertently installing the repair necessary for addressing the identified unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion and improper bonding, which in combination with a lightning strike in this area, could create a source of ignition in a fuel tank, resulting in a fire or explosion, and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2012-09-07, Amendment 39-17042 (77 FR 28238, May 14, 2012), with revised repair approval language. For Model A319-111, -112, and -132 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214 and -232 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -211, -212, and -231 airplanes; certificated in any category; having manufacturer serial numbers 0039, 0078, 0109, 0118, 0120, 0153, 0174, 0187, 0203, 0215, 0218, 0226, 0227, 0228, 0236, 0237, 0269, 0270, 0278, 0285, 0286, 0287, 0288, 0294, 0301, 0337, 0377, 0462, 0463, 0464, 0465, 0520, 0523, 0528, 0876, 0888, 0921, 0935, 0974, 1014, 1102, 1130, 1160, 1162, 1177, 1215, 1250, 1287, 1336, 1388, 1404, 1444, 1449, 1476, 1505, 1524, 1564, 1605, 1616, 1622, 1640, 1645, 1658, 1677, 1691, 1729, and 1905: Within 24 months after June 18, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-09-07), do an electrical bonding test to check for bonding between the re-fuel adaptor of the gravity fill and the top skin panels on the left-hand and right-hand wings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1152, dated June 14, 2010.
(1) If the resistance value is 10 milliOhms or less at the left-hand and right-hand wing,
(2) If the resistance value is greater than 10 milliOhms at the left-hand or right-hand wing, before further flight, do a general visual inspection for corrosion of the component interface and adjacent area, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1152, dated June 14, 2010. If any corrosion is found during the inspection, before further flight, repair the gravity fill fuel adaptor, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1152, dated June 14, 2010; except where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1152, dated June 14, 2010, specifies to contact Airbus, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
For airplanes other than those identified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, determine whether a corrosion repair has been done on an overwing refueling aperture, whereby a primer coating has been applied on the mating surface of the aperture flange. A maintenance records check is acceptable to make this determination, provided those records can conclusively determine whether a primer coat was applied.
(1) If it is determined that a primer coating was applied on the mating surface of the aperture flange; or if a determination cannot be made, or the outcome is inconclusive: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD do the electrical bonding test specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, and before further flight, all applicable actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
(2) If it is determined that a corrosion repair has not been done, and a primer coating has not been applied on the mating surface of the aperture flange since first entry into service, no further action is required by this paragraph.
As of the effective date of this AD, any corrosion repair done on an overwing refueling aperture on any airplane must be compliant with the repair requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012-09-07, Amendment 39-17042 (77 FR 28238, May 14, 2012), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0277R1, dated December 4, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC) Model 430 helicopters to require inspecting the tail rotor control tube assembly (control tube) and either repairing or replacing the control tube. This proposed AD is prompted by two reports of failure of the control tube bonded clevis. The proposed actions are intended to prevent failure of a control tube bonded clevis, which could lead to failure of the control tube and subsequent loss of helicopter control.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 29, 2014.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bell
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD No. CF-2013-30, dated October 7, 2013, to correct an unsafe condition for BHTC Model 430 helicopters with control tube part number (P/N) 430-001-007-101. TCCA advises of two cases concerning failures of the control tube bonded clevis caused by cracking from control tube oscillation. TCCA states that this situation, if not corrected, could result in the loss of control of the helicopter. TCCA AD No. CF-2013-30 consequently requires a one-time inspection of the control tube for damage and contacting BHTC for evaluation of the control tube if the damage exceeds allowable limits. If the tube is not damaged, the damage is within allowable limits, or BHTC Engineering determines the control tube can be returned to service, TCCA AD No. CF-2013-30 requires modifying the tube according to BHTC's service information. TCCA AD No. CF-2013-30 also requires replacing control tubes, P/N 430-001-007-101, with control tube, P/N 430-001-007-105, no later than 12 months from the effective date of its AD.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, TCCA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We reviewed Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 430-13-51, dated September 3, 2013 (ASB), which states that BHTC received two reports of control tube, P/N 430-001-007-101, failing because the clevis failed due to fatigue caused by control tube oscillation. The ASB specifies a one-time inspection of control tube assembly, P/N 430-001-007-101, to verify if the tube has chaffing damage. Bell Helicopter Technical Bulletin 430-04-35, Revision B, dated March 20, 2009, recommends that control tube, P/N 430-001-007-101, be replaced with control tube, P/N 430-001-007-105, if damage exists.
This proposed AD would require:
• Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS), visually inspecting each control tube for damage, damage to the clevis, and to determine whether the clevis is correctly bonded to the control tube.
• If a control tube and clevis have no damage or damage within acceptable limits and the clevis is correctly bonded to the control tube, repairing the control tube by applying tape.
• If the control tube or clevis is damaged beyond acceptable limits or if the clevis is not correctly bonded, replacing control tube, P/N 430-001-007-101, with control tube, P/N 430-001-007-105.
• Within 250 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, replacing each control tube, P/N 430-001-007-101, with control tube, P/N 430-001-007-105.
The TCCA AD requires submitting sketches of a control tube damaged beyond defined limits to BHTC for evaluation. BHTC then determines if the control tube can be returned to service. We make no such requirement in this proposed AD.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 5 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 a work hour. Based on these estimates, expect the following costs:
• The cost of inspecting the control tube would be minimal.
• Repairing the control tube would require 2 work-hours for a labor cost of $170.
• Replacing control tube, P/N 430-001-007-101, with control tube, P/N 430-001-007-105, would require 3 work-hours for a labor cost of $255. Parts would cost $3,974 for a total cost per helicopter of $4,229.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC) Model 430 Helicopters, serial number 49001 through 49121, with control tube assembly (control tube), part number (P/N) 430-001-007-101, installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as fatigue failure of a tail rotor control tube bonded clevis. This condition could result in failure of the tail rotor control tube and subsequent loss of helicopter control.
We must receive comments by September 29, 2014.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS), visually inspect each control tube for any damage, for any damage to the clevis, and to determine whether the clevis is correctly bonded to the control tube.
(i) If a control tube and clevis have no damage or damage within acceptable limits and the clevis is correctly bonded to the control tube, repair the control tube by applying tape in accordance the Accomplishment Instructions, Paragraph 5, of Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 430-13-51, dated September 3, 2013.
(ii) If the control tube or clevis is damaged beyond acceptable limits or if the clevis is not correctly bonded to the control tube, replace control tube, P/N 430-001-007-101, with control tube, P/N 430-001-007-105.
(2) Within 250 hours TIS, replace each control tube, P/N 430-001-007-101, with control tube, P/N 430-001-007-105.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Bell Helicopter Technical Bulletin 430-04-35, Revision B, dated March 20, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in the Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) AD No. CF-2013-30, dated October 7, 2013. You may view the TCCA AD on the Internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6720, Tail Rotor Control System.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
On May 22, 2014, the Department of the Interior announced the availability of a proposed rule to revise regulations governing the process and criteria by which the Secretary acknowledges an Indian tribe. We have since received several requests for extension of the comment period and additional public hearings. This notice extends the comment deadline by 60 days and announces the addition of two more public hearings and two more tribal consultation sessions on the proposed rule.
Comments on this rule must be received by September 30, 2014. See the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please note that we will not consider or include in the docket for this rulemaking comments received after the close of the comment period (see
Ms. Elizabeth Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action, (202) 273-4680;
On May 22, 2014, we announced the availability of a proposed rule to revise regulations governing the process and criteria by
The newly announced public meetings and tribal consultation sessions will be held by teleconference on the following schedule:
These teleconferences are in addition to the previously announced six in-person public hearings and six tribal consultation sessions on the proposed rule.
The proposed rule, frequently asked questions, and other information are available online at:
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
On June 19, 2014, we announced a proposed rule pertaining to hearings on negative proposed findings for Federal acknowledgment of Indian tribes. Our proposed rule is related to a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) proposed rule. 79 FR 30766 (May 29, 2014). Requests for extension of the comment period were submitted for both proposed rules. Because BIA is extending the comment period for its proposed rule, we are extending the comment deadline for our proposed rule as well.
Comments on this rulemaking must be received by September 30, 2014.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please note that we will not consider or include in the docket for this rulemaking any comments received after the close of the comment period (see
Karl Johnson, Senior Attorney, Office of Hearing and Appeals, Departmental Case Hearings Division, (801) 524-5344;
On June 19, 2014, we announced in the
We and BIA both received requests for to extend the comment period on our proposed rules. In response to these requests, BIA is extending its comment period and we are also extending our comment deadline to match the new comment deadline for the BIA rule.
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition for reconsideration.
Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by Chuck Powers, on behalf of Motorola Solutions, Inc., John Cimko, on behalf of Mimosa Network. Inc., Chuck Hogg, on behalf of Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, Daniel Zimmerman, on behalf of JAB Wireless, Inc., Jennifer A. Manner, on behalf of ECHOSTAR Technologies, L.L.C., David Kaufman, on behalf of Cambium Networks Ltd, and Frederick M. Joyce, on behalf of Global Automakers, Inc.
Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed by August 14, 2014. Replies to an opposition must be filed by August 25, 2014.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Aole Wilkins, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2406, or by email
This is a summary of Commission's document,
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The USDA Forest Service, Monongahela National Forest, Gauley Ranger District intends to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental consequences of a vegetation management project. In the EIS the USDA Forest Service will address the potential environmental impacts due to creating early successional forest; enhancing the growth and mast production of forest stands; and increasing wildlife habitat diversity.
The Big Rock Project is located in the Cranberry River watershed, north of the community of Richwood, in Nicholas and Webster Counties, WV. The 23,490 acres in the project area include an estimated 21,767 acres of National Forest System Land and 1,723 acres of privately-owned land. No activities are proposed on private lands.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received or post-marked by September 8, 2014. Comments received or post-marked after this initial scoping period will be considered, but will not afford the commenter standing to file a later objection on the project, unless they are submitted during a future designated comment period. The draft environmental impact statement is expected in March 2015 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in June 2015. A decision is expected in September of 2015.
Send written comments to Jane Bard, ID Team Leader, Big Rock Project, 932 North Fork Cherry Rd., Richwood, WV 26261. Comments may also be sent via email to
Jane Bard, ID Team Leader, at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday (excluding federal holidays).
The purpose of the Big Rock Project is to implement land management activities that are consistent with the Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and will help to bring the Forest closer to the desired condition. The Forest Plan outlines goals, objectives and desired conditions for Forest resources. The Big Rock Project Area is in Management Prescription (MP) 3.0, which emphasizes age class diversity and sustainable timber production; habitat for wildlife species tolerant of disturbances, such as deer, grouse, and squirrel; and a variety of forest scenery (Forest Plan, as updated in 2011, III-4). The desired condition relevant to this project is for a full range of forest age-classes of primarily hardwood trees and associated understories to be distributed in a mosaic pattern, thus providing for the habitat needs of a variety of wildlife species. Harvest of trees is expected to provide sustainably-produced timber to the market. Roads and trails systems provide access for recreation, administration, and management purposes, including transportation of forest products. (Forest Plan, as updated in 2011, III-6 and 7)
The project area is currently composed of approximately one percent early successional forest (0-19 yrs), with over 80% in the mid-late successional age-class (80-120 yrs). In contrast, the Forest-wide MP 3.0 direction for age-class composition is for a range of 12-20% to be maintained in early successional forest and 24-40% to be maintained in mid-late successional forest. In addition, many stands in the project area contain closely-spaced trees. Crowded trees can result in reduced growth, crown size, and mast production due to competition for light, water, and nutrients. Throughout the project area there is a general lack of vernal pools for wildlife. Collectively, these conditions depart from the desired condition and present opportunities to increase wildlife habitat diversity.
The following actions have been identified to address the needs described above. (1) To meet the need to create early successional forest, conduct commercial regeneration harvest using clearcut with reserves on 1,342 acres. Treatments included in regeneration harvests are pre-harvest vine treatment, site preparation for natural regeneration, designation of wildlife and riparian leave trees, retention of standing dead snag trees, and creation of any required snags by girdling. Herbicides may also be used for snag creation or vine treatment. (2) To meet the need to enhance the growth and mast production of forested stands, conduct commercial thinning harvest on 702 acres using ground based skidding and on 491 acres using helicopter logging. (3) To meet the need to increase wildlife habitat diversity, the vegetation management activities described in numbers 1 and 2 above are proposed. Additional habitat diversity will be created by constructing twenty small vernal pools.
In order to carry out the proposed vegetation management activities, roads, skid trails, and landings will be needed. Therefore, the proposed action includes the construction of 3.7 miles of low standard road. This road mileage would be added to the National Forest System of roads. Associated landings and skid trails would be constructed as well.
The Responsible Official for this project is the Gauley District Ranger of the Monongahela National Forest.
Following completion of the EIS, the responsible official will review the proposed action, other alternatives, and environmental consequences in order to decide whether to implement the proposed action as described; to implement an alternative version of this proposal that addresses issues; to defer any action at this time; or to amend the Forest Plan.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the EIS. In conjunction with this notice, the Forest is notifying the public of the open scoping period by sending letters to those that have indicated interest in this type of project on the Monongahela National Forest. In addition, news releases will be sent to the local newspapers and project information will be posted locally, including at the Gauley Ranger District Office and National Forest campgrounds in the vicinity of the project. A field trip to the project area will be held on August 15, 2014. This field trip will only take place if interest is expressed. Please RSVP to Jane Bard (at contact information contained in
A 45-day comment period will be offered on this project in the future when the Draft EIS is available for public review. Specific, written comments submitted during that comment period will also give standing to later submit an objection on the project.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be a part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, will not give the commenter standing to file an objection.
40 CFR 1501.7, 1506.6, and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 20, Section 22
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Southwest Montana Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Dillon, Montana. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend projects for Title II funding.
The meeting will be held at 1:00 p.m. on August 21, 2014.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at 420 Barrett Street, Dillon, Montana.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Patty Bates, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 406-683-3979 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site:
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Tri-County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Deer Lodge, Montana. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is review and recommend projects for Title II funding.
The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. on August 20, 2014.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at 1002 Hollenback Road, Deer Lodge, Montana.
Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Supervisors Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.
Patty Bates, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 406-683-3979 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site:
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was mandated to develop and implement a quality assurance program under which the Administrator may certify privately-made hydrographic products. The Administrator fulfilled this mandate by establishing procedures by which hydrographic products are proposed for certification; by which standards and compliance tests are developed, adopted, and applied for those products; and by which certification is awarded or denied. These procedures are now at 15 CFR 996. The application and recordkeeping requirements at 15 CFR 996 are the basis for this collection of information.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The DOC's International Trade Administration (ITA) administers the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor program and U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor program. The U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework and U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Framework provide eligible U.S. organizations with a streamlined means of complying with the relevant requirements of the European Union's Data Protection Directive and the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection. The Safe Harbor Frameworks help facilitate the flow of personal data worth critical to billions of dollars in trade between the United States and the EU and Switzerland.
In line with President Obama's National Export Initiative, the DOC is
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (“hot-rolled steel”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), covering the period of review (“POR”) November 1, 2012 through October 31, 2013. The Department preliminarily determines that Baosteel Group Corporation, Shanghai Baosteel International Economic & Trading Co., Ltd., and Baoshan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Baosteel”) had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
Steven Hampton, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0116.
The Department is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from the PRC pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”). On November 29, 2001, the Department published in the
The products covered by the order are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by the order, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusion, please see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
As noted in the “Background” section above, Baosteel has submitted a timely-filed certification indicating that it had no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit cases briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via IA ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Baosteel, which claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from the rate assigned to the company in the most recently completed review of the company; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 90.83 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
The Department is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA), with support from the American Institute of Architects (
The mission will help participating firms and associations/organizations gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects, with the goal of increasing U.S. architectural services exports. The mission will include market briefings, one-on-one business appointments with pre-screened potential buyers, agents, distributors, industry leaders, and joint venture partners; meetings with state and local government officials (in Qatar only); and networking events. Participating in an official U.S. industry delegation, rather than traveling on their own, will enhance the companies' ability to identify opportunities in Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
The mission will be supported by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) (
The U.S.-Qatar trade relationship is going through a massive transformation. The U.S. posted a trade surplus of nearly $3.7 billion in 2013, with record U.S. exports to Qatar of $5 billion. U.S. exports to Qatar in 2013 established a new record, growing by 38.6% over 2012, when U.S. exports totaled $3.58 billion, the previous record high. U.S. exports to Qatar continued to be strong in early 2014. Despite Qatar's small population (Qatar is a country of only two million people and only 250,000 Qataris), they rank as the fifth largest market in the Middle East and North Africa region, only behind the much larger markets of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt. Over the past 3 years exports have grown by 57%.
With Qatar's 2030 Vision to transform itself from a carbon-based economy combined with the award of the 2022 FIFA World Cup, Qatar is spending over $250 billion on physical infrastructure and other developments over the next five years. Projects include the new Hamad International Airport (Phase I just completed, Phase II being planned), the New Doha Port Project (the world's largest greenfield port project), road conversion (conversion of UK-style roundabouts to U.S. road layouts), new rail lines (three subway lines and three light-rail tram systems), new stadiums (between 9-12 to be built), as well as hospitals, schools, commercial and hospitality venues.
Potential meetings may include: Hamad International Airport (Phase II), QRail; the Public Works Authority (Ashghal); Qatar Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy (2022 FIFA World Cup); Katara Hospitality; and the
Saudi Arabia is the 10th largest trading partner of the United States with bilateral trade of $71 billion in 2013 and also the 19th largest destination for U.S. exports. In 2013, U.S. exports to Saudi Arabia exceeded the $19 billion mark, an increase of 6% from 2012. The Saudi economy—the largest in the Middle East and North Africa region—has been growing at a robust pace. The private sector has been, and is expected to continue to be, the key driver behind stronger non-oil sector growth, with an annual growth rate close to seven percent since 2000. Oil and gas reserves have also generated significant financial liquidity from 2006 to 2013. As a result, there are currently about $960 billion worth of projects planned or under way in Saudi Arabia. Of these, more than $700 billion are megaprojects, or large master planned developments of more than $1 billion, making Saudi Arabia the biggest opportunity in the region for businesses involved in the infrastructure and construction sectors. The revenues from hydrocarbon resources are expected to be sufficient to support planned development spending and private sector growth. The FY2014 budget projects government spending at $219 billion.
Saudi Arabia's architecture, construction and engineering sector remains one of the most important industries in the Kingdom's economy. Prior to 2000, Saudi Arabia utilized traditional architectural design in commercial and residential buildings. However, the country's desire to develop a modern appearance has led to architectural and architectural engineering services demands expanding on average nine percent per annum, which accounted for an estimated $2 billion in 2013. This is particularly evident as Saudi Arabia seeks to move towards stricter building codes, leading towards more energy efficient, green (LEED) and sustainable residential, industrial and commercial infrastructure. U.S. architecture, architectural engineering, and interior design firms will find a comparative advantage in commercial design and in residential development. Saudi Arabia is already looking for U.S. capabilities in assisting in the design and development of 500,000 residential units and multi-use compounds associated with the significant demand for housing. With respect to the approximately 300 five star hotels to be built in the next five to ten years, U.S. companies are also favored for their interior design services. With the push for greater water efficiency and reduction in lost water, many project developers will also need assistance in landscape architecture. With increased spending in education and the building of new centers of learning, U.S. companies will again be poised to benefit. U.S. architecture firms have been the designers of choice on many projects in Saudi Arabia and the future continues to offer significant potential. It is important to note that the Saudi market lends itself to mid-sized and larger U.S. architecture/engineering firms.
The goals of the Architecture Services Trade Mission are to provide U.S. participants with first-hand market information, and one-on-one meetings with business contacts, including potential partners, so that they can position themselves to enter or expand their presence in the market. As such, the mission will focus on helping U.S. companies obtain market information and establish business and government contacts (please note that for the optional stop in Saudi Arabia, no meetings with Saudi government ministries or officials will be arranged).
The mission will also facilitate first-hand market exposure and access to government decision makers and key private-sector industry contacts, especially potential partners. It will provide opportunities for participants to have policy and regulatory framework discussions in order to advance U.S. architectural sector interests in Qatar. It will provide participants with an opportunity to meet with Qatari architecture trade associations, to foster long-term partnerships, and to share best practices, especially with trade association/organization participants. Mission participants will visit key Qatar development sites to gain direct exposure to the rapid infrastructure and planning changes underway.
In Saudi Arabia, the mission will focus on identifying potential partners and opportunities for U.S. companies to gain a share of the large market in infrastructure products and services. Primary focus will be on matchmaking meetings with potential private sector partners in Saudi Arabia and site visits to some of the key infrastructure projects underway in Riyadh.
The optional stop in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia will include briefings by Commercial Service (CS) officers in Saudi Arabia on current political and economic developments as well as upcoming trends. This will be followed by one-on-one meetings between U.S. and Saudi companies. The next day will include site visits in Riyadh. The mission will begin in Doha with a welcome dinner (or related event) on Monday, November 17. On November 18, participants will attend a briefing organized by CS Doha. Then, participants will hear from guest speakers for an overview of doing business in Qatar, upcoming projects, and other topics of interest. Additional planned events include site tours and matchmaking events with ACE potential partners, including briefings on and site visits to current and planned projects in areas such as infrastructure, sports, hospitality, healthcare, and education.
On November 19, mission participants will have the opportunity for additional site visits. In addition to being the largest port in the region, Doha hosts an expanding industrial cluster.
The participants will attend policy, market and commercial briefings by CS and industry experts as well as networking events offering further opportunities to speak with potential distributors, agents, partners and end users. U.S. participants will be counseled before and after the mission by CS staff.
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, service providers and/or trade associations/organizations will be selected from the applicant pool to participate in the Qatar stop. The Riyadh optional stop is limited to 7-10 firms, service providers and/or trade associations/organizations.
After an applicant has been selected to participate in the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. Upon notification of acceptance to participate, those selected have 5 business days to submit payment or the acceptance may be revoked.
The participation fee for the trade mission to Qatar alone is $2900 for small or medium-sized enterprises (SME)
The additional participation fee for the Saudi Arabia optional stop is $2000 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 (except for transportation to and from meetings, and airport transfers between Riyadh and Doha during the mission), and air transportation. Participants will, however, be able to take advantage of U.S. Government rates for hotel rooms. Visas will be required for both Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are also not included in the mission costs. The U.S. Department of Commerce, however, 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 their products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation by August 30, 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 United States, or, if not, are marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content by value. In the case of a trade association or organization, the applicant must certify that, for each firm or service provider to be represented by the association/organization, the products and/or services the represented firm or service provider seeks to export are either produced in the United States or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content.
We recommend calculating the U.S. content of an ACE service using the following formula:
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 any matter pending before any bureau or office in the Department of Commerce;
• 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.
In the case of a trade association/organization, the applicant must certify that each firm or service provider to be represented by the association/organization can make the above certifications.
Targeted mission participants are U.S. firms, services providers and trade associations/organizations providing or
• Suitability of a firm's or service provider's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm or service provider's) products or services to these markets.
• Firm's or service provider's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm or service provider's) potential for business in the markets, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission.
• Consistency of the firm's or service provider's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm or service provider's) 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 August 30, 2014. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions as quickly as possible. Applications received after August 30, 2014 will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 29, 2014.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Patsy A. Bearden, (907) 586-7008 or
This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection.
The Rockfish Program determines the access and allocation of the Central Gulf of Alaska (GOA) rockfish fisheries and associated halibut prohibited species catch (PSC), also known as the rights of access to the fishery. Cooperatives were established to receive exclusive harvest privileges for rockfish primary and secondary species. These resource allocations are used to assign the available resources in an economic way. In the case of halibut, a specific amount of halibut mortality is assigned to the cooperative, because halibut is often caught incidentally with rockfish.
The rockfish fisheries are conducted in Federal waters near Kodiak, Alaska, primarily by trawl vessels, and to a lesser extent by longline vessels. The Rockfish Program allocates harvest privileges to holders of License Limitation Program (LLP) licenses with a history of Central GOA rockfish landings associated with those licenses.
Respondents have a choice of online, electronic, or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms. Online application allows cooperatives to check in and out in conjunction with their current online account balance Web sites.
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
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 29, 2014.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Patsy A. Bearden, (907) 586-7008 or
This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection.
The Alaska Pacific Halibut Charter Program established Federal Charter Halibut Permits (CHPs) for operators in the charter halibut fishery in IPHC regulatory Areas 2C (Southeast Alaska) and 3A (Central Gulf of Alaska). Since February 1, 2011, all vessel operators in Areas 2C and 3A with charter anglers onboard catching and retaining Pacific halibut must have a valid CHP onboard during every charter vessel fishing trip. CHPs must be endorsed with the appropriate regulatory area and number of anglers.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implemented this program based on recommendations by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to meet allocation objectives in the charter halibut fishery. This program provides stability in the fishery by limiting the number of charter vessels that may participate in Areas 2C and 3A and decreasing the overall number of available CHPs over time. The program goals are to increase the value of the resource, limit boats to qualified active participants in the guided sport halibut sector, and enhance economic stability in rural coastal communities.
Respondents have a choice of electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Department of Defense.
Notice to add a new Privacy Act System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to establish a new system of records for Continuous Evaluation (CE).
Comments will be accepted on or before August 29, 2014. This proposed action will be effective the date 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. Cindy Allard, Chief, OSD/JS Privacy Office, Freedom of Information Directorate, Washington Headquarters Service, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0461. The Office of the Secretary of Defense 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 June 30, 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).
Following the 2013 Washington Navy Yard shooting, the President directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct, within 120 days, a review of suitability and security clearance procedures for Federal employees and contractors. In response, OMB established an interagency review team to assess risks and vulnerabilities inherent in current security, suitability, and credentialing processes and identified solutions to safeguard our personnel and protect our nation's most sensitive information. The resulting report to the President committed the DoD to expanding its current CE pilots in FY14 and expanding overall CE capability beginning in FY15. Concurrent with the OMB review, the Secretary of Defense directed internal and independent reviews to identify and recommend actions that address gaps or deficiencies in DoD programs, policies, and procedures regarding security at DoD installations and the issuance and renewal of security clearances for DoD and contractor personnel. On March 18, 2014, the Secretary of Defense approved the internal review's four resulting recommendations, including: Task 1—Implement Continuous Evaluation and Task 2—Establish the DoD Insider Threat Management and Analysis Center.
To implement CE, the Department is developing an efficient and cost-effective technical solution that supplements existing Federal Investigative Standards and Departmental security processes (such as periodic reinvestigations and self-reporting) to more quickly and reliably identify and prioritize new information that gives cause to question whether individuals who are affiliated with the DoD should retain eligibility for access to classified information or be allowed unescorted access to controlled facilities. A technical CE solution will play a crucial role in improving personnel security and identifying potential insider threats.
The CE capability will use automated records checks of authoritative commercial and Government data sources (e.g., criminal, financial, or credit records) consistent with source records' permissible uses and will flag issues of security concern when behaviors are detected that could potentially disqualify an individual for eligibility for access to classified information or assignment to national security positions. Disqualifiers within the realm of security clearance eligibility are described in the Federal Adjudicative Guidelines. The CE capability will utilize business rules that are aligned with these guidelines and the revised Federal Investigative Standards and will only be applied to personnel who have consented to CE.
At all points during the development and implementation of the Department's CE solution, any issues related to privacy, civil liberties, and accuracy will be addressed and appropriate safeguards, consistent with national security, will be put into place.
Continuous Evaluation Records for Personnel Security.
Defense Manpower Data Center, DoD Center Monterey Bay, 400 Gigling Road, Seaside, CA 93955-6771.
DoD-affiliated individuals who have signed and submitted the March 2010 or later version of the SF-86, “Questionnaire for National Security Positions” (SF-86) and have thereby agreed to be subject to Continuous Evaluation (CE).
Applicable records containing the following information about the individual subject to continuous evaluation may be maintained:
a. Evidence of the individual's signed consent to continuous evaluation.
b. Responses from official questionnaires (e.g., SF 86 Questionnaire for National Security Positions) that include: Name, former names, and aliases; date and place of birth; social security number; height; weight; hair and eye color; gender; mother's maiden name; current and former home addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses; employment history; military record information; selective service registration record; residential history; education and degrees earned; names of associates and references with their contact information; citizenship; passport information; criminal history; civil court actions; prior security clearance and investigative information; results of prior continuous evaluation checks; mental health history; records related to drug and/or alcohol use; financial record information; information from the Internal Revenue Service pertaining to income tax returns; credit reports; the name, date and place of birth, social security number, and citizenship information for spouse or cohabitant; the name and marriage information for current and former spouse(s); the citizenship, name, date and place of birth, and address for relatives; information on foreign contacts and activities; association records; information on loyalty to the United States; and other agency reports furnished to DoD in connection with background investigation, continuous evaluation, or insider threat detection processes, and other information developed from above.
c. Reports of security violations and security-related incidents and data collected and actions taken to resolve them.
d. Pre-employment screening reports, such as counter-intelligence screening or military accessions vetting.
e. Dates and types of past investigations; dates and types of access granted based on qualifying investigations; indications of whether prior investigations were adjudicated based on exceptions, deviations, or waivers; denials, revocations, debarments, administrative actions, and other adverse actions based on adjudication of investigations.
f. Records of personnel background investigations conducted by other Federal agency investigation service providers.
g. Agency Use Block (AUB) question responses including type of investigation requested, case number, extra coverage/advance results, sensitivity level, access/eligibility, nature and date of action, geographic location, position code and title, Submitting Office Number (SON), location of official personnel folder, Security Office Identifier (SOI), use of the Intra-governmental Payment and Collection (IPAC) system, Treasury Account Symbol (TAS), obligating document number, Business Event Type Code (BETC), investigative requirement, requesting officials' name, title, email address, phone number, and applicant affiliation.
h. Educational data on schools and dates of attendance; conduct information that includes disciplinary actions, transcripts, commendations, degrees, certificates, and subject's explanations regarding education conduct.
i. Employment information on current and previous employment that includes: Name of employer, dates employed, address, name, and phone number of supervisor. Conduct information that includes promotions, dates and reasons for disciplinary actions to include termination; performance evaluation; and subject's explanations regarding employment conduct; employment references names, current address, phone number and email address; salary and wage information.
j. Selective Service record, military history, and conduct information.
k. Foreign contact and activities information that include names of individuals known, dates, country(ies) of citizenship, country(ies) of residence, type and nature or contact, financial interests, assets, benefits from foreign governments, countries and dates of arrival and departure for U.S. border crossings.
l. Results of subject and reference interviews conducted during the course of Continuous Evaluation, Counterintelligence Screening, or security incident resolution.
m. Information contained in local, state, and Federal criminal justice agency records and local, state, and Federal civil and criminal court records.
n. Information that pertains to excessive use of alcohol or use of illegal drugs. (This does not include or authorize CE checks of individuals' health or medical records).
o. Information about and evidence of unauthorized use of information technology systems.
p. For purposes of detecting unexplained affluence: U.S. and foreign finance and real estate information that consists of names of financial institutions, number of accounts held, monthly and year-end account balances for bank and investment accounts, address, year of purchase and price, capital investment costs, lease or rental information, year of lease or rental, monthly payments, deeds, lender/loan information and foreclosure history.
q. For purposes of detecting unexplained affluence: Information on leased vehicles, boats, airplanes and other U.S. and foreign assets that include type, make model/year, plate or identification number, year leased, monthly rental payment; year of purchase and price, and year-end fair market value.
r. For purposes of detecting unexplained affluence: Information pertaining to large currency transactions or other suspicious financial transactions.
s. For purposes of detecting unexplained affluence: U.S. and foreign mortgages, loans, and liabilities information that consist of type of loan, names and addresses of creditors, original balance, monthly and year-end balance, monthly payments, payment history, and name and address of institution where safe deposit box is located.
t. Publically available electronic information about or generated by the subject of continuous evaluation (e.g.,
u. Results of automated record checks required to test new or alternative investigative data sources for purposes of improving efficiency or cost-effectiveness of CE.
v. Information about affiliation with known criminal and/or terrorist organizations.
5 U.S.C. 9101, Access to Criminal History Information for National Security and Other Purposes; 10 U.S.C. 137, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; 10 U.S.C. 504, Persons Not Qualified; 10 U.S.C. 505, Regular components: Qualifications, term, grade; E.O. 10450, Security Requirements for Government Employment; E.O. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry; E.O. 12333, United States Intelligence Activities; E.O. 13526, Classified National Security Information; E.O. 12968, as amended, Access to Classified Information; E.O. 13467, Reforming Processes Related to Suitability for Government Employment, Fitness for Contractor Employees, and Eligibility for Access to Classified National Security Information; E.O. 13470, Further Amendments to Executive Order 12333; 32 CFR part 154, Department of Defense Personnel Security Program Regulation; 32 CFR part 155, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance; 32 CFR part 156, Department of Defense Personnel Security Program (DoDPSP); DoD Directive 1145.03E, United States Military Entrance Processing Command (USMEPCOM); DoD Instruction (DoDI) 1304.26, Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment and Induction; DoDI 5200.02, DoD Personnel Security Program (PSP); DoDI 5220.06, Defense Industrial Personnel Clearance Review Program; DODI 5220.22, National Industrial Security Program (NISP); DoD 5200.2-R, Department of Defense Personnel Security Program Regulation; HSPD 12: Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors; FIPS 201-1: Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of Federal Employees and Contractors; Director of Central Intelligence Directive 8/1: Intelligence Community Policy on Intelligence Information Sharing; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.
Records in the system will be used to conduct CE to: (1) Identify DoD-affiliated personnel with eligibility for access to classified information who have engaged in conduct of security concern; (2) identify and initiate needed follow-on inquiries and/or investigative activity and enable security officials and adjudicators to determine and take appropriate actions; and (3) perform research, development, and analyses related to DoD's CE program. These analyses are conducted to: (a) Evaluate and improve DoD and federal personnel security, insider threat, and other background vetting and continuous evaluation procedures, programs, and policies; (b) assist in providing training, instruction, and advice on personnel security and insider threats, and assess continuing reliability of subjects; (c) encourage cooperative research within and among DoD Components, the Intelligence Community, and the Executive branch on initiatives having DoD or Federal Government-wide implications in order to ensure that appropriate information is shared efficiently when authorized to do so and to avoid duplication of efforts; (d) address items of special interest to personnel security officials within DoD Components, the Intelligence Community, and the Executive branch (e.g., evaluating responses to excessive indebtedness, auditing information to ensure individuals with mental health issues are being protected appropriately, monitoring numbers and types of security incidents); and (e) conduct personnel security pilot test projects related to DoD's CE program for purposes of research and development.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained in the system may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows, where release is not otherwise restricted by law or executive order:
• To Federal, State, local, tribal government agencies, if necessary, to obtain information from them for the purposes of CE, which will assist DoD in identifying security risks and areas in the personnel security field that may warrant more training, instruction, research, or intense scrutiny.
• To Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Office of Personnel Management counterintelligence personnel to assist them with their investigations and inquiries.
• To the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and other Federal Government agencies responsible for conducting background investigations and continuing evaluation in order to provide them with information relevant to their inquiries and investigations.
• To law enforcement agencies, if a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions contains information indicative of a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether Federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.
• To the Director of National Intelligence, as Security Executive Agent, or his assignee, to perform any functions authorized by law or executive order in support of personnel security programs. Examples include the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act and E.O. 13467.
• To the Office of Personnel Management, to perform any functions authorized by law or executive order in support of personnel security programs. Examples include the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458) and E.O. 10450.
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system. The complete list of DoD blanket routine uses can be found Online at:
Electronic storage media and paper records maintained in file folders.
Records may be retrieved by name and Social Security Number (SSN), and/or, where applicable, DoD identification number.
Records are stored under lock and key, in secure containers, or on electronic media that contain intrusion safeguards. Access to these investigative, incident report and response, and adjudicative records is role-based and is limited to those individuals requiring access in the performance of their official duties. All individuals who are granted access must have a need-to-know, been investigated and granted security clearance eligibility level at a level equal to or higher than subjects of records to which they have access, and been advised as to the sensitivity of the records and their responsibilities to safeguard the information contained in them from unauthorized disclosure. All individuals granted access to this system of records will receive Information Assurance and Privacy Act training.
Audit logs will be maintained to document access to data. All data transfers and information retrievals using remote communication facilities are encrypted. Records are maintained in a secure database in a controlled area accessible only to authorized personnel. Entry to these areas is restricted by the use of locks, guards, and administrative procedures.
Disposition pending (until the National Achieves Records Administration (NARA) disposition schedule is approved, treat as permanent).
Deputy Director for Identity, Defense Manpower Data Center, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-6000 and Deputy Director, Defense Manpower Data Center, 400 Gigling Road, Seaside, CA 93955-6771.
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system contains information about them should address written inquiries to the Privacy Office, Defense Manpower Data Center, DoD Center Monterey Bay, 400 Gigling Road, Seaside, CA 93955-6771.
Written requests must contain the following information:
a. Full name, former name, and any other names used.
b. Date and place of birth.
c. Social Security Number.
d. The address to which the record information should be sent.
e. Telephone number.
f. You must sign your request.
Individuals wishing to request access to their records should address written inquiries to the Privacy Office, Defense Manpower Data Center, DoD Center Monterey Bay, 400 Gigling Road, Seaside, CA 93955-6771.
Written requests must contain the following information:
a. Full name, former name, and any other names used.
b. Date and place of birth.
c. Social Security Number.
d. The address to which the record information should be sent.
e. You must sign your request.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside of the United States: 'I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: 'I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'
Attorneys or other persons acting on behalf of an individual must provide written authorization from that individual for the representative to act on their behalf.
The written authorization must also include an original notarized statement or an unsworn declaration in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format: I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).
The OSD rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in OSD Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or may be obtained from the system manager.
Information in this system may be provided by the individual based on responses on their signed SF-86 and investigative interviews; Department of Defense civilian, contractor, and military personnel, criminal, and security record systems; Military Component recruiting information systems; Federal Government systems of records (as authorized by their routine use clauses in system of records notices) that provide security-relevant information; publicly available electronic information sources; commercial data providers (e.g., credit reporting companies and online news sources); local, state, and tribal civil and criminal record systems; systems for monitoring misuse of government-owned information technology systems; past and present employers; personal references; education institutions.
Exempt records received from other systems of records in the course of Continuous Evaluation record checks may, in turn, become part of the case records in this system. When records are exempt from disclosure in systems of records for record sources accessed by this system, the Defense Manpower Data Center hereby claims the same exemptions for any copies of such records received by and stored in this system.
Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 29, 2014.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Geanne Gilroy, 202-205-5482.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (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 (PRA): “Survey of the Public and Commercial Building Industry” and identified by EPA ICR No. 2494.01 and OMB Control No. 2070-NEW. The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized in this document. EPA has addressed the comments received in response to the previously provided public review issued in the
Comments may be received on or before August 29, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0715, to both EPA and OMB as follows:
• To EPA online using
• To OMB via email to
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the 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. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Judith Brown, Economics, Exposure and Technology Division (7406M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-3218; fax number: (202) 564-8893; email address:
The information collected through the survey (along with information submitted to EPA in response to the previous
Establishments will be selected using a stratified random sampling method. EPA plans to have a total of 402
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of EPA's draft human health and ecological risk assessment for the registration review of Dicrotophos and opens a public comment period on this document. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. As part of the registration review process, the Agency has completed a comprehensive draft human health and ecological risk assessment for all Dicrotophos uses. After reviewing comments received during the public comment period, EPA will issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and respond to comments and may request public input on risk mitigation before completing a proposed registration review decision for Dictotophos. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0440, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager listed under
1.
2.
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
3.
EPA is conducting its registration review of Dicrotophos pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.
As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide registration for Dicrotophos to ensure that it continues to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration—that is, that Dicrotophos can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Dicrotophos is a broad spectrum organophosphate insecticide used on cotton and as a tree-injection for ornamental and non-food producing trees. EPA has completed a comprehensive draft human health and a screening level ecological risk assessment for all Dicrotophos uses.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide comments and input concerning the Agency's draft human health and ecological risk assessment for Dicrotophos. Such comments and input could address, among other things, the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions, as applied to this draft risk assessment. The Agency will consider all comments received during the public comment period and make changes, as appropriate, to the draft human health and ecological risk assessment. EPA will then issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and respond to comments. In the
As described in detail in the Dicrotophos Summary Document (see docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0440), the Agency believes that the human health and ecological data sets are complete, and no additional human health or ecological data are needed for this registration review or dicrotophos. However, the Agency is interested in additional information in the following areas: Existing or planned water quality monitoring data, where aerial application of dicrotophos is important, and suggestions for risk mitigation measures that address the risks identified in the draft human health and ecological risk assessments for dicrotophos.
1.
2.
• To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date.
• The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form.
• Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information.
• Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Dicrotophos.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 14, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 25, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
1.
2.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case:
As a result of the investigations, both publications have been retracted.
• Falsified Figures 2k, 2l, 3a, 3f, 3h, and 3i in
(1) That the administrative actions delineated in (2)-(4) below will be required for three (3) years after the effective date of the Agreement, beginning on the date of Respondent's employment in a research position in which he receives or applies for U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) support; however, if within three (3) years of the effective date of the Agreement, Respondent has not obtained employment in a research position in which he receives or applies for PHS support, the administrative actions in (2)-(4) will no longer apply;
(2) to have any PHS-supported research supervised; Respondent agrees that prior to the submission of an application for PHS support for a research project on which the Respondent's participation is proposed and prior to Respondent's participation in any capacity on PHS-supported research, Respondent shall ensure that a plan for supervision of Respondent's duties is submitted to ORI for approval; the supervision plan must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of Respondent's research; Respondent agrees that he shall not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervision plan is submitted to and approved by ORI; Respondent agrees to maintain responsibility for compliance with the agreed upon supervision plan;
(3) that any institution employing him shall submit, in conjunction with each application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract involving PHS-supported research in which Respondent is involved, a certification to ORI that the data provided by Respondent are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived and that the data, procedures, and methodology are accurately reported in the application, report, manuscript, or abstract; and
(4) to exclude himself voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.
Acting Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8800.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project:
Comments on this notice must be received by September 29, 2014.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
This project is Task Order #11 under the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Prevention and Care Management Technical Assistance Center Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract. The project, entitled “Care Coordination Measure Development—Phase III”, will develop a patient survey of the quality of care coordination for adults in primary care settings, i.e., the Care Coordination Quality Measure for Primary Care (CCQM-PC). The project will update the
There are four explicit objectives for our analysis of the pilot-test data:
• Evaluate the quality of the responses to the CCQM-PC survey (through item functioning analysis).
• Determine how the items that ask for reports of patient experiences could be summarized into a smaller set of composite measures (through factor analysis).
• Evaluate the measurement properties of the composite scales (assessment of reliability, validity, and variability of the measure).
• Identify information (i.e., case mix adjusters) that should be used to adjust scores to ensure valid comparisons among primary care practices (PCPs).
• Determine how CCQM-PC scores vary among practices that self-report processes of care that are more or less aligned with a medical home model.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, American Institutes for Research (AIR), pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on healthcare and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).
Thirty primary care practices of different types and ownership configurations will be recruited to provide a patient sample to AHRQ's contractor, AIR for the purpose of establishing the psychometrics of the CCQM-PC and understanding the relation of its domains to a practice-level measure of processes of care, the Medical Home Index (Long Version, MHI-LV). The CCQM-PC will be conducted by mail with phone follow-up for nonrespondents. Survey
• Mail the questionnaire package, including a personalized letter introducing the study and explaining the respondent's rights as a research participant. Include a postage-paid envelope to encourage participation.
• Send a postcard reminder to nonrespondents 10 days after sending the questionnaire.
• Send a second questionnaire with a reminder letter to those still not responding thirty days after the first mailing.
• Begin follow-up by telephone with nonrespondents three weeks after sending the second questionnaire. Interviewers will attempt to locate respondents who have not responded to the mailed survey.
• Verify telephone numbers for sample respondents prior to calling.
• Make a maximum of 9 attempts by phone.
• Include a toll-free number in the cards and letters for respondents to call if they have questions about the survey. The firm responsible for fielding the survey will establish a helpdesk that will start operating at the first mailing and that will remain open until close of fieldwork.
• Answer incoming calls live during business hours and a recording machine will capture after hours calls. The after-hours calls will be returned next business day.
• Ask two clinicians from each participating practice complete the MHI-LV by paper-and-pencil jointly and return the form to the AHRQ contractor.
The information collected in the pilot survey will be used to test and improve the draft survey. The pilot design will support the standard suite of psychometric analyses conducted to identify and develop composite scoring algorithms as well as to provide evidence of the reliability and construct validity of the composite scores and any scores based on individual items. Additionally, the variations in composite scores and total CCQM-PC scores will be examined for any differences that may be correlated with variations in the practice's self-assessment of its engagement in processes of care that are consistent with the medical home model. The analyses will include the following components:
Data from the pilot survey will be used to make final adjustments to the CCQM-PC. The final survey instrument will be made publicly available, at no charge, to prospective users, for use in research projects that aim to assess care coordination as it relates to quality care and healthcare outcomes, thereby helping to expand the evidence base for the care coordination construct and its associated processes. There is value, given where the field is now, in developing a survey of reasonable length that can be used for research purposes, but also can serve as the “parent” survey from which a smaller subset of items appropriate for quality improvement could be drawn.
A well-developed, psychometrically-sound, practical survey of adult patients' experiences of care coordination in primary care settings, that covers key conceptual domains articulated through AHRQ's past work in this area, will help generate evidence that is needed to understand the relationship between care coordination processes and health outcomes, in addition to offering a way to explore other critical questions regarding care coordination.
The development of this research-focused survey is a critical step in moving toward the future development of measures of care coordination in primary care settings that can be used for accountability purposes, including those submitted for consideration of endorsement by the National Quality Forum. This will ensure that the measures or measure set is useful from a public reporting perspective to a variety of potential stakeholders, including patients seeking providers that engage in care coordination practices supported by the evidence base. The key target audiences for the use of the survey are researchers and, ultimately, payers (including health insurance plans, employers, and entities such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services), although use by health systems and individual primary care practices is also envisioned.
Exhibit 1 shows the total estimated annualized burden hours for the CCQM-PC pilot survey (2,022 hours), including burden for survey respondents (1,890 hours) and practice staff (132 hours). With respect to the burden on CCQM-PC survey respondents, thirty practices will be sampled, with the survey sent to 375 prospective respondents per sample. A 40% response rate (in keeping with response rates on other CAHPS® and CAHPS®-like surveys of similar length and mode) will yield 150 respondents per practice. Total respondents were calculated by multiplying the number of practices by the respondents per practice, for a total of 4,500 (i.e., 150 × 30 = 4,500). The survey has 102 items (79 assessment items, 4 items about healthcare services sought in the past 12 months, and 19 items that assess participant characteristics such as demographics), with an estimated completion time of 25 minutes (.42 hours) per survey response. This estimate is based on the length of previous CAHPS® surveys of comparable length that have been administered to similar populations.
Burden hours for participating practices are calculated based on the total burden to one physician/administrator and one other clinician to complete the MHI-LV. The measure author recommends that both physician and non-physician viewpoints are considered in the PCP's response, thus the estimate is based on an assumption that two clinicians per practice will complete the MHI-LV process of care items together, with only one of the clinicians (i.e., the physician/administrator) completing the items on practice characteristics. Contract staff from AIR will ensure that practices realize there is no burden to them on the MHI-LV other than the time required to fill out the MHI-LV tool (i.e., they can ignore the measure author's reference in the instructions to a companion patient tool associated with the MHI-LV).
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the pilot survey administration. The total cost burden is estimated to be $51,228 for the one-time survey pilot.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) 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 upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. To request more information on the below proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call 404-639-7570 or send comments to Leroy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Colorectal Cancer Control Program Indirect/Non-Medical Cost Study (OMB No. 0920-0963, exp. 4/30/2014)—Reinstatement with Change—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In 2013 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to conduct a study to measure the time and costs incurred by patients screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) with colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (OMB No. 0920-0963, exp. 4/30/2014). Information has been collected from patients screened through the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), however, the target number of respondents was not achieved during the initial approval period. CDC requests OMB approval to reinstate the information collection for one year in order to meet recruitment goals and complete the data analysis as outlined in the original approval.
Changes described in this Reinstatement request include a reduction in the number of respondents and a corresponding reduction in the total estimated burden hours. There are minor modifications to the data collection instruments to clarify intent but these modifications do not change the estimated burden per response.
Colorectal Cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, following lung cancer. Based on scientific evidence which indicates that regular screening is effective in reducing CRC incidence and mortality, regular CRC screening is now recommended for average-risk persons. Screening tests that may be used alone or in combination include fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), flexible sigmoidoscopy, and/or colonoscopy.
While screening rates have increased over the past decade, screening prevalence is still lower than desirable, particularly among individuals with low socioeconomic status. The indirect and non-medical costs associated with CRC screening, such as travel costs, may act as barriers to screening. Understanding these costs may provide insights that can be used to reduce such barriers and increase participation.
In 2005, CDC established a four-year demonstration program at five sites to screen low-income individuals aged 50-64 years who had no health insurance or inadequate health insurance for CRC. In 2009, by applying lessons learned from the demonstration program, CDC designed and initiated the larger population-based Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) at 29 sites. The goals of the expanded program are to reduce health disparities in CRC screening, incidence and mortality by promoting CRC screening for the eligible population and providing CRC screening to low-income adults over 50 years of age who have no health insurance or inadequate health insurance for CRC screening.
To date there has been no comprehensive assessment of all the costs associated with CRC screening, especially indirect and non-medical costs, incurred by the low-income population served by the CRCCP. CDC proposes to address this gap by collecting information from a subset of patients enrolled in the program. Those who undergo screening by FIT or colonoscopy will be asked to complete a specialized questionnaire about the time and personal expense associated with their screening. Patients who undergo fecal immunochemical testing will be asked to complete the FIT questionnaire, which is estimated to take about 10 minutes. Patients who undergo colonoscopy will be asked to complete the Colonoscopy questionnaire, which includes additional questions about the preparation and recovery associated with this procedure. The estimated burden per response for the Colonoscopy questionnaire is 25 minutes. Demographic information will be collected from all patients who participate in the study.
CDC plans to conduct the information collection in partnership with providers in four states (Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania). Each participating provider will make patient navigators available to assist patients with coordinating the screening process and completing the questionnaires. Providers will be reimbursed for patient navigator time and administrative expense associated with data collection. The target number of responses for the overall study will result in 300 completed Colonoscopy Questionnaires and 290 completed FIT Questionnaires. During the initial approval period CDC collected approximately 50% of the target number of completed questionnaires. To complete the study CDC plans to collect an additional 150 Colonoscopy Questionnaires and an additional 177 FIT Questionnaires.
This information collection will be used to produce estimates of the personal costs incurred by patients who undergo CRC screening by FIT or colonoscopy, and to improve understanding of these costs as potential barriers to participation. Study findings will be disseminated through reports, presentations, and publications. Results will also be used by participating sites, CDC, and other federal agencies to improve delivery of CRC screening services and to increase screening rates among low-income adults over 50 years of age who have no health insurance or inadequate health insurance for CRC screening.
OMB approval is requested for one year. Each respondent will have the option of completing a hardcopy questionnaire or an on-line questionnaire. No identifiable information will be collected by CDC or CDC's data collection contractor. Participation is voluntary and there are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
We are, however, requesting an emergency review of the information collection referenced below. In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following requirements for emergency review. This is necessary to ensure compliance with an initiative of the Administration. We are requesting an emergency review under 5 CFR Part 1320(a)(2)(i) because public harm is reasonably likely to result if the normal clearance procedures are followed. We are seeking emergency approval for modifications to the information collection request (ICR) currently approved under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 0938-1187 to include account registration elements associated with submitting data through the Amazon Cloud EDGE Server or the On-Premise EDGE server. As a result of contractor changes and technical design changes to our distributed data collection (DDC) approach for implementing the risk adjustment and reinsurance programs, we must change the data elements that issuers will submit as part of the DDC information collection requirements. These modifications will permit us to register EDGE servers with the appropriate issuer accounts, permitting CMS to make risk adjustment and reinsurance payments to issuers.
Comments must be received by August 27, 2014.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following requirements for emergency review. This is necessary to ensure compliance with an initiative of the Administration. We are requesting an emergency review under 5 CFR Part 1320(a)(2)(i) because public harm is reasonably likely to result if the normal clearance procedures are followed.
1.
We are requesting OMB review and approval of this collection by August 27, 2014, with a 180-day approval period. Written comments and recommendations will be considered from the public if received by the date and address noted below.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “FDA Safety Communication Readership Survey” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
On May 21, 2014, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “FDA Safety Communication Readership Survey” 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 0910-0341. The approval expires on July 31, 2017. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) Appeals Processes: Questions and Answers About 517A.” This document provides CDRH's interpretation of key provisions of section 517A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), which were added by the FDA Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), as these provisions pertain to requests for documentation of rationales for significant decisions and requests for supervisory review of regulatory decisions and actions taken by CDRH.
Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Ruth Fischer, CDRH, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5400, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5735.
In July 2012, section 517A of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360g-l) was added by section 603 of FDASIA (Pub. L. 112-114). CDRH developed this guidance as a companion document to the final guidance entitled “Center for Devices and Radiological Health Appeals Processes,” which was issued on May 17, 2013. The guidance “Center for Devices and Radiological Health Appeals Processes: Questions and Answers About 517A” provides CDRH's interpretation of key provisions of section 517A of the FD&C Act as these provisions pertain to requests for documentation of rationales for significant decisions and requests for supervisory review of regulatory decisions and actions taken by CDRH. In particular, this document provides interpretations surrounding the statutory terms “significant decision” and “substantive summary.” It also addresses who may request documentation of significant decisions under section 517A of the FD&C Act, and how this provision relates to requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
In the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115).
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information found in 21 CFR part 814 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart H have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0332. The collections of information in the guidance document “Center for Devices and Radiological Health Appeals Processes” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0738.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the fee rates and payment procedures for medical device user fees for fiscal year (FY) 2015. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2012 (MDUFA III), authorizes FDA to collect user fees for certain medical device submissions and annual fees both for certain periodic reports and for establishments subject to registration. This notice establishes the fee rates for FY 2015, which apply from October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015. To avoid delay in the review of your application, you should pay the standard fee before or at the time you submit your application to FDA. The fee you must pay is the fee that is in effect on the later of the date that your application is received by FDA or the date your fee payment is recognized by the U.S. Treasury. If you want to pay a reduced small business fee, you must qualify as a small business before making your submission to FDA; if you do not qualify as a small business before making your submission to FDA, you will have to pay the higher standard fee. Please note that the establishment registration fee is not eligible for a reduced small business fee. As a result, if the establishment registration fee is the only medical device user fee that you will pay in FY 2015, you should not submit a FY 2015 Small Business Qualification and Certification request. This document provides information on how the fees for FY 2015 were determined, the payment procedures you should follow, and how you may qualify for reduced small business fees.
Section 738 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j) establishes fees for certain medical device applications, submissions, supplements, and notices (for simplicity, this document refers to these collectively as “submissions” or “applications”); for periodic reporting on class III devices; and for the registration of certain establishments. Under statutorily defined conditions, a qualified applicant may receive a fee waiver or may pay a lower small business fee. (See 21 U.S.C. 379j(d) and (e).) Additionally, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) may, at the Secretary's sole discretion, grant a fee waiver or reduction if the Secretary finds that such waiver or reduction is in the interest of public health. (See 21 U.S.C. 379j(f).)
Under the FD&C Act, the fee rate for each type of submission is set at a specified percentage of the standard fee for a premarket application (a premarket application is a premarket approval application (PMA), a product development protocol (PDP), or a biologics license application (BLA)). The FD&C Act specifies the base fee for a premarket application for each year from FY 2013 through FY 2017; the base fee for a premarket application received by FDA during FY 2015 is $258,019. From this starting point, this document establishes FY 2015 fee rates for other types of submissions, and for periodic reporting, by applying criteria specified in the FD&C Act.
The FD&C Act specifies the base fee for establishment registration for each year from FY 2013 through FY 2017; the base fee for an establishment registration in FY 2015 is $3,750. There is no reduction in the registration fee for small businesses. Each establishment that is registered (or is required to register) with the Secretary under section 510 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360) because such establishment is engaged in the manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of a device is required to pay the annual fee for establishment registration.
The base revenue amount for FY 2015 is $125,767,107, as set forth in the statute prior to the inflation adjustment. (See 21 U.S.C. 379j(b)(3)(C).) MDUFA directs FDA to use the yearly revenue amount as a starting point to set the standard fee rates for each fee type. The fee calculations for FY 2015 are described in this document.
MDUFA specifies that the $125,767,107 is to be further adjusted for inflation increases for FY 2015 using two separate adjustments—one for payroll costs and one for non-pay cost (see 21 U.S.C. 379j(c)(2)).
The component of the inflation adjustment for payroll costs shall be the sum of one plus the average annual percent change in the cost of all personnel compensation and benefits (PC&B) paid per full-time equivalent position (FTE) at FDA for the first 3 of the 4 preceding FYs, multiplied by 0.60, or 60 percent (see 21 U.S.C. 379j(c)(2)(C)). The data on total PC&B paid and numbers of FTE paid, from which the average cost per FTE can be derived, are published in FDA's Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees.
Table 1 summarizes the actual cost and FTE data for the specified FYs, and provides the percent change from the previous FY and the average percent change over the first 3 of the 4 FYs preceding FY 2015. The 3-year average is 1.8829 percent.
The payroll adjustment is 1.8829 percent multiplied by 60 percent, or 1.1297 percent.
The statute specifies that the portion of the inflation adjustment for non-payroll costs for FY 2015 is the average annual percent change that occurred in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for urban consumers (Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV; not seasonally adjusted; all items; annual index) for the first 3 of the preceding 4 years of available data multiplied by 0.40, or 40 percent (see 21 U.S.C. 379j(c)(2)(C)).
Table 2 provides the summary data and the 3-year average percent change in the specified CPI for the Baltimore-Washington area. This data is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and can be found on their Web site at
The non-pay adjustment is 2.3568 percent multiplied by 40 percent, or 0.9427 percent.
To complete the inflation adjustment, the payroll adjustment (1.1297 percent) is added to the non-pay adjustment (0.9427 percent), for a total of 2.0724 percent, and plus one equals to 1.020724.
MDUFA III provides for this inflation adjustment to be compounded beginning in FY 2015 (see 21 U.S.C. 379j(c)(2)(B)(ii)). The FY 2015 inflation rate is multiplied by the FY 2014 inflation rate of 1.02198 percent as published in the
Under the FD&C Act, all submission fees and the periodic reporting fee are set as a percent of the standard (full) fee for a premarket application (see 21 U.S.C. 379j(a)(2)(A)). For FY 2015, the base fee will be adjusted as specified in the FD&C Act for inflation (see 21 U.S.C. 379j(b) and (c)). Table 3 provides the last 3 years of fee paying submission counts and the 3-year average. These numbers are used to project the fee paying submission counts that FDA will receive in FY 2015. The fee paying submission counts are published in the MDUFA Financial Report to Congress each year.
The information in Table 3 is necessary to estimate the amount of revenue that will be collected based on the fee amounts. Table 4 displays both the estimated revenue using the FY 2015 base fees set in statute and the estimated revenue adding the inflation adjustment to the FY 2015 base fees. Using the fees set in statute and the 3-year averages of fee paying submissions, the collections would total $134,915,821, which is $3,720,821 higher than the statutory revenue amount. Accordingly the PMA and establishment fee should be decreased by 2.761%, rounded to the nearest whole dollar, so that collections come as close to the statutory limit of $131,195,000 as possible without exceeding the limit. The fees in the second column from the right are those we are establishing in FY 2015, which are the standard fees.
The standard fee (adjusted base amount) for a premarket application, including a BLA, and for a premarket report and a BLA efficacy supplement, is $250,895 for FY 2015. The fees set by reference to the standard fee for a premarket application are:
• For a panel-track supplement, 75 percent of the standard fee;
• For a 180-day supplement, 15 percent of the standard fee;
• For a real-time supplement, 7 percent of the standard fee;
• For a 510(k) premarket notification, 2 percent of the standard fee;
• For a 30-day notice, 1.6 percent of the standard fee;
• For a 513(g) request for classification information, 1.35 percent of the standard fee; and
• For an annual fee for periodic reporting concerning a class III device, 3.5 percent of the standard fee.
For all submissions other than a 510(k) premarket notification, a 30-day notice, and a 513(g) request for classification information, the small business fee is 25 percent of the standard (full) fee for the submission. (See 21 U.S.C. 379j(d)(2)(C).) For a 510(k) premarket notification submission, a 30-day notice, and a 513(g) request for classification information, the small business fee is 50 percent of the standard (full) fee for the submission. (See 21 U.S.C. 379j(d)(2)(C) and (e)(2)(C).)
The annual fee for establishment registration, after adjustment, is set at $3,646 for FY 2015. There is no small business rate for the annual establishment registration fee; all establishments pay the same fee.
Table 5 summarizes the FY 2015 rates for all medical device fees.
If your business has gross receipts or sales of no more than $100 million for the most recent tax year, you may qualify for reduced small business fees. If your business has gross sales or receipts of no more than $30 million, you may also qualify for a waiver of the fee for your first premarket application (PMA, PDP, or BLA) or premarket report. You must include the gross receipts or sales of all of your affiliates along with your own gross receipts or sales when determining whether you meet the $100 million or $30 million threshold. If you want to pay the small business fee rate for a submission, or you want to receive a waiver of the fee for your first premarket application or premarket report, you should submit the materials showing you qualify as a small business 60 days before you send your submission to FDA. If you make a submission before FDA finds that you qualify as a small business, you must pay the standard (full) fee for that submission.
If your business qualified as a small business for FY 2014, your status as a small business will expire at the close of business on September 30, 2014. You must re-qualify for FY 2015 in order to pay small business fees during FY 2015.
If you are a domestic (U.S.) business, and wish to qualify as a small business for FY 2015, you must submit the following to FDA:
1. A completed FY 2015 MDUFA Small Business Qualification Certification (Form FDA 3602). This form is provided in FDA's guidance document, “FY 2015 Medical Device User Fee Small Business Qualification and Certification,” available on FDA's Web site at
2. A certified copy of your Federal (U.S.) Income Tax Return for the most recent tax year. The most recent tax year will be 2014, except:
If you submit your FY 2015 MDUFA Small Business Qualification before April 15, 2015, and you have not yet filed your return for 2014, you may use tax year 2013.
If you submit your FY 2015 MDUFA Small Business Qualification on or after April 15, 2015, and have not yet filed your 2014 return because you obtained an extension, you may submit your most recent return filed prior to the extension.
3. For each of your affiliates, either:
• If the affiliate is a domestic (U.S.) business, a certified copy of the affiliate's Federal (U.S.) Income Tax Return for the most recent tax year, or
• If the affiliate is a foreign business and cannot submit a Federal (U.S.) Income Tax Return, a National Taxing Authority Certification completed by, and bearing the official seal of, the National Taxing Authority of the country in which the firm is headquartered. The National Taxing Authority is the foreign equivalent of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. This certification must show the amount of gross receipts or sales for the most recent tax year, in both U.S. dollars and the local currency of the country, the exchange rate used in converting the local currency to U.S. dollars, and the dates of the gross receipts or sales collected. The applicant must also submit a statement signed by the head of the applicant's firm or by its chief financial officer that the applicant has submitted certifications for all of its affiliates, identifying the name of each affiliate, or that the applicant has no affiliates.
If you are a foreign business, and wish to qualify as a small business for FY 2015, you must submit the following:
1. A completed FY 2015 MDUFA Foreign Small Business Qualification Certification (Form FDA 3602A). This form is provided in FDA's guidance document, “FY 2015 Medical Device User Fee Small Business Qualification and Certification,” available on FDA's Internet site at
2. A National Taxing Authority Certification, completed by, and bearing the official seal of, the National Taxing Authority of the country in which the firm is headquartered. This certification must show the amount of gross receipts or sales for the most recent tax year, in both U.S. dollars and the local currency of the country, the exchange rate used in converting the local currency to U.S. dollars, and the dates of the gross receipts or sales collected.
3. For each of your affiliates, either:
• If the affiliate is a domestic (U.S.) business, a certified copy of the affiliate's Federal (U.S.) Income Tax Return for the most recent tax year (2014 or later), or
• If the affiliate is a foreign business and cannot submit a Federal (U.S.) Income Tax Return, a National Taxing Authority Certification completed by, and bearing the official seal of, the National Taxing Authority of the country in which the firm is headquartered. The National Taxing Authority is the foreign equivalent of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. This certification must show the amount of gross receipts or sales for the most recent tax year, in both U.S. dollars and the local currency of the country, the exchange rate used in converting the local currency to U.S. dollars, and the dates for the gross receipts or sales collected. The applicant must also submit a statement signed by the head of the applicant's firm or by its chief financial officer that the applicant has submitted certifications for all of its affiliates, identifying the name of each affiliate, or that the applicant has no affiliates.
If your application or submission is subject to a fee and your payment is received by FDA from October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015, you must pay the fee in effect for FY 2015. The later of the date that the application is received in the reviewing center's document room or the date the U.S. Treasury recognizes the payment determines whether the fee rates for FY 2014 or FY 2015 apply. FDA must receive the correct fee at the time that an application is submitted, or the application will not be accepted for filing or review.
FDA requests that you follow the steps below before submitting a medical device application subject to a fee to ensure that FDA links the fee with the correct application. (
Log on to the MDUFA Web site at:
Once you are satisfied that the data on the cover sheet is accurate, electronically transmit that data to FDA according to instructions on the screen. Because electronic transmission is possible, applicants are required to set up a user account and password to assure data security in the creation and electronic submission of cover sheets.
1. If paying with credit card or electronic check (Automated Clearing House (ACH)):
FDA has partnered with the U.S. Department of the Treasury to utilize Pay.gov, a Web-based payment system, for online electronic payment. You may make a payment via electronic check or credit card after submitting your cover sheet. To pay online, select the “Pay Now” button. Credit card transactions for cover sheets are limited to $49,999.99.
2. If paying with a paper check:
• All paper checks must be in U.S. currency from a U.S. bank and made payable to the Food and Drug Administration. (FDA's tax identification number is 53-0196965, should your accounting department need this information.)
• Please write your application's unique PIN, from the upper right-hand corner of your completed Medical Device User Fee cover sheet, on your check.
• Mail the paper check and a copy of the completed cover sheet to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979033, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. (Please note that this address is for payments of application and annual report fees only and is not to be used for payment of annual establishment registration fees.)
If you prefer to send a check by a courier, the courier may deliver the check to: U.S. Bank, Attn: Government Lockbox 979033, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (
3. If paying with a wire transfer:
• Please include your application's unique PIN, from the upper right-hand corner of your completed Medical Device User Fee cover sheet, in your wire transfer. Without the PIN, your payment may not be applied to your cover sheet and review of your application may be delayed.
• The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. Please ask your financial institution about the fee and add it to your payment to ensure that your cover sheet is fully paid.
Use the following account information when sending a wire transfer: New York Federal Reserve Bank, U.S. Department of Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, Acct. No. 75060099, Routing No. 021030004, SWIFT: FRNYUS33, Beneficiary: FDA, 8455 Colesville Rd., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
FDA records the official application receipt date as the later of the following: (1) The date the application was received by FDA or (2) the date the U.S. Treasury recognizes the payment. It is helpful if the fee arrives at the bank at least 1 day before the application arrives at FDA.
Please submit your application and a copy of the completed Medical Device User Fee cover sheet to one of the following addresses:
1. Medical device applications should be submitted to: Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Document Mail Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 0609, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
2. Biologics license applications should be sent to: Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Document Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Bldg. 71, Rm. G112, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
You will be invoiced at the end of the quarter in which your PMA Periodic Report is due. Invoices will be sent based on the details included on your
1. If paying with a paper check:
All paper checks must be in U.S. currency from a U.S. bank and made payable to the Food and Drug Administration. (FDA's tax identification number is 53-0196965, should your accounting department need this information.)
• Please write your invoice number on the check.
• Mail the paper check and a copy of invoice to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979033, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
(Please note that this address is for payments of application and annual report fees only and is not to be used for payment of annual establishment registration fees.)
If you prefer to send a check by a courier, the courier may deliver the check to: U.S. Bank, Attn: Government Lockbox 979033, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (Note: This address is for courier delivery only. Contact the U.S. Bank at 314-418-4013 if you have any questions concerning courier delivery.)
2. If paying with a wire transfer:
• Please include your invoice number in your wire transfer. Without the invoice number, your payment may not be applied and you may be referred to collections.
• The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. Please ask your financial institution about the fee and add it to your payment to ensure that your invoice is fully paid.
Use the following account information when sending a wire transfer: New York Federal Reserve Bank, U.S. Department of the Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, Acct. No. 75060099, Routing No. 021030004, SWIFT: FRNYUS33, Beneficiary: FDA, 8455 Colesville Rd., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
In order to pay the annual establishment fee, firms must access the Device Facility User Fee (DFUF) Web site at
Companies that do not manufacture any product other than a licensed biologic are required to register in the Blood Establishment Registration (BER) system. FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) will send establishment registration fee invoices annually to these companies.
To submit a DFUF Order, you must create or have previously created a user account and password for the user fee Web site listed previously in this section. After creating a user name and password, log into the Establishment Registration User Fee FY 2015 store. Complete the DFUF order by entering the number of establishments you are registering that require payment. Once you are satisfied that the information in the order is accurate, electronically transmit that data to FDA according to instructions on the screen. Print a copy of the final DFUF order and note the unique PIN located in the upper right-hand corner of the printed order.
Unless paying by credit card, all payments must be in U. S. currency and drawn on a U.S. bank.
1. If paying by credit card or electronic check (ACH):
The DFUF order will include payment information, including details on how you can pay online using a credit card or electronic check. Follow the instructions provided to make an electronic payment.
2. If paying with a paper check:
You may pay by a check, in U.S. dollars and drawn on a U.S. bank, mailed to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979108, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. (Note: This address is different from the address for payments of application and annual report fees and is to be used only for payment of annual establishment registration fees.)
If a check is sent by a courier that requests a street address, the courier can deliver the check to: U.S. Bank, Attn: Government Lockbox 979108, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (
Please make sure that both of the following are written on your check: (1) The FDA post office box number (P.O. Box 979108) and (2) the PIN that is printed on your order. A copy of your printed order should also be mailed along with your check.
3. If paying with a wire transfer:
Wire transfers may also be used to pay annual establishment fees. To send a wire transfer, please read and comply with the following information:
Include your order's unique PIN, from the upper right-hand corner of your completed DFUF order, in your wire transfer. Without the PIN, your payment may not be applied to your facility and your registration will be delayed.
The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. Please ask your financial institution about the fee and add it to your payment to ensure that your order is fully paid. Use the following account information when sending a wire transfer: New York Federal Reserve Bank, U.S. Dept. of Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, Acct. No. 75060099, Routing No. 021030004, SWIFT: FRNYUS33, Beneficiary: FDA, 8455 Colesville Rd., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
FDA's tax identification number is 53-0196965.
Go to the Center for Devices and Radiological Health's Web site at
Enter your existing account ID and password to log into FURLS. From the FURLS/FDA Industry Systems menu,
After completing your annual or initial registration and device listing, you will be prompted to enter your DFUF order PIN and PCN, when applicable. This process does not apply to establishments engaged only in the manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of licensed biologic devices. CBER will send invoices for payment of the establishment registration fee to such establishments.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one portion of the meeting will be closed 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 Gail Dapolito 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).
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 100.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 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.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Aging.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
60-Day Notice of Information Collection for review; Suspicious/Criminal Activity Tip Reporting; OMB Control No. 1653-0049.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE), is submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Office of Chief Information Office, Forms Management Office, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, 801 I Street NW., Mailstop 5800, Washington, DC 20536-5800.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
August 11, 2014, 9 a.m.-10 a.m.
Inter-American Foundation, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave NW., 12th Floor North, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20004.
Meeting of the Board of Directors, Open to the Public.
Paul Zimmerman, General Counsel, (202) 683-7118.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge in Oktibbeha, Winston, and Noxubee Counties, Mississippi, for public review and comment. In this Draft CCP/EA, we describe the alternative we propose to use to manage this refuge for the 15 years following approval of the final CCP.
To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments by September 29, 2014.
You may obtain a copy of the Draft CCP/EA by contacting Steve Reagan, Refuge Manager, by U.S. mail at 13723 Bluff Lake Rd., Brooksville, MS 39739. Alternatively, you may download the document from our Internet Site at
Steve Reagan, (662) 323-5548 x225 or
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge (SDHN NWR), started through a notice in the
SDHN NWR is located within three counties (Noxubee, Oktibbeha, and Winston) in east-central Mississippi, and is approximately 17 miles south-southwest of Starkville and approximately 120 miles north-northeast of Jackson, the capital city of Mississippi. The refuge is currently 48,219 acres. The primary establishing legislation for the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge is Executive Order 8444, dated June 14, 1940. Established as Noxubee NWR in 1940, the refuge was subsequently renamed Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee NWR by Public Law 112-279 on February 14, 2012.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation,
Priority resource issues addressed in the Draft CCP/EA include Fish and Wildlife Populations, Habitat Management, Resource Protections, Visitor Services, and Refuge Administration.
We developed three alternatives for managing the refuge (Alternatives A, B, and C), with Alternative C as our proposed alternative. A full description of each alternative is in the Draft CCP/EA. We summarize each alternative below.
Under this alternative, no major changes to our biological, public use and administrative management practices would occur from their current levels. The refuge would continue to actively manage for waterfowl habitat. Forested bottomland habitats would receive little to no active management. Habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers would continue as the refuge's highest priority. Habitats would not be managed for historic conditions but maintained to favor a pine dominated forest type. Law enforcement efforts would remain the same. Visitor services would continue at current levels.
This alternative emphasizes active habitat management actions that would benefit the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) and waterfowl. Visitor service programs and facilities in support of the six priority public uses (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, interpretation, and environmental education) would be much reduced below those levels for Alternatives A and C. Non-wildlife dependent public uses would be phased out. Under this alternative, the refuge would favor management that restores historic forest conditions. The refuge would maintain and, where appropriate, restore the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge.
This alternative would provide approximately 1 million Duck Energy Days (DEDs) over a 110-day period yearly, through the possible combination of managed moist soil units, planted agricultural crops that can be flooded, aquatic vegetation and invertebrates within refuge lakes, and seasonally flooded greentree reservoirs (GTRs) which provide mast crops and invertebrates. Wood duck breeding opportunities would be enhanced. Silvicultural treatments within bottomland hardwood habitats would receive low priority, but may be used to promote recruitment of red oak species within the overstory of those flooded forested habitats used by waterfowl. Manipulation of water level would be the primary tool used to produce the desired shrub-scrub cover. The refuge would participate in wood duck banding programs. Bottomland forests would benefit forest-breeding birds. Active manipulation of habitats for the benefit of forest-breeding birds would be at a priority lower than that required for RCW and waterfowl. The number of red-cockaded woodpecker clusters would be based on continuous pine habitat as defined by historic conditions and the optimal partition size of 308 acres based on the 100-year rotation. A new refuge target goal would be 27 RCW clusters. All RCW partitions would be managed according to the RCW Recovery Plan. Forested habitats would be actively manipulated to produce a forest reflective of historic conditions. No additional, non-historic pine habitats would be maintained or converted for support of the RCW to pine. Refuge staff and possibly contractors would continue to scientifically monitor RCWs through nest and fledge checks. Quantitative monitoring would be limited to RCWs, and other wildlife would be monitored through simple reconnaissance. Efforts would be made to prevent the establishment of exotic invasives and pest species. Water levels in all greentree reservoirs (GTRs) would be managed through water manipulation so that no more than two GTRs would be purposefully flooded for wintering waterfowl habitat yearly. All old fields and the Morgan Hill Prairie Demonstration Area would no longer be maintained. Other than in areas where forests are being restored to their historic condition, the refuge would actively manage forested habitats to maintain the desired wildlife habitat for federally listed species and waterfowl. Upland forests would be managed for historic conditions and, when applicable, management would emphasize needed habitat for federally listed species.
Comprehensive, refuge-wide surveys would be opportunistically sought, but individual cultural resource surveys for only specific projects or sites would be the standard. Partnerships would be developed with other agencies, institutions, and ethnic groups (e.g., Choctaw Nation, African American groups, etc.), to accomplish tasks and seek ideas and means to improve management of cultural resources. Efforts would be made to acquire additional lands in the Approved Acquisition Boundary through fee-simple title and timber for land exchange. The two existing Research Natural Areas (RNAs) would continue to be recognized as if under the Society of American Foresters (SAF) designation, but research objectives and management strategies would remain undeveloped. Improvements to the existing law enforcement program would be based on recommendations provided by the Office of the Chief of Refuge Law Enforcement (LE), Southeast Region, following a program review.
The existing hunting programs would be reduced through reductions in staff and facility support. The visitor center would be closed on weekends. The picnic area and nearby public restrooms would be closed. Fish habitat would not be enhanced for increased recreational uses. Wildlife observation and photography opportunities would be reduced through the reduced availability and maintenance of viewing facilities, such as boardwalks and nature trails. Special use events requiring substantial planning and resources to host would be discontinued. Some of the secondary gravel roads would be closed to vehicles. Signage and information available to the public would be reduced. Public use staff would be eliminated and replaced with biological or forestry technicians. No off-site interpretive programs would be offered. Refuge staff would not participate in Environmental Education; it would be solely dependent on the currently structured partnership with Starkville School District and volunteers.
The staff would be held at 13 or fewer employees, with organizational changes made to increase field staff, including law enforcement officers and biological and forestry technicians. Facilities and equipment would all be placed on a priority list and maintained when funding allowed. Closing or removal of poorly maintained assets would occur. The collection of fees for permitted
This alternative will manage refuge resources to optimize native wildlife populations and habitats under a balanced and integrated approach, not only for federally listed species (RCW) and migratory birds, but also for other native species such as white-tailed deer, wild turkey, Northern bobwhite, paddlefish, and forest-breeding birds. This alternative also provides opportunities for the six priority public uses (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, interpretation and environmental education) and other wildlife-dependent activities found appropriate and compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established.
Under this alternative, the refuge would favor management that restores historic forest conditions while achieving refuge purposes. This alternative would provide approximately 1 million Duck Energy Days (DEDs) over a 110-day period yearly, through the possible combination of managed moist soil units, planted agricultural crops that can be flooded, aquatic vegetation and invertebrates within refuge lakes, and seasonally flooded greentree reservoirs which provide mast crops and invertebrates. Wood duck breeding opportunities would be enhanced using wood duck nest boxes, but greater emphasis would be placed on protecting trees with natural cavities throughout the bottomland forests. Trees found with existing cavities and those having unique wildlife values would be protected from timber harvest. Active manipulation of habitats and populations would occur as necessary to maintain biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. Silvicultural treatments within bottomland hardwood habitats would receive low priority, but may be used to promote recruitment of red oak species within the overstory of those flooded forested habitats used by waterfowl. The refuge would attempt to increase brood survival of waterfowl by managing shallow water aquatic habitats to produce and sustain protective shrub-scrub cover with fringe area of the refuge's lakes. Manipulation of water level would be the primary tool used to produce the desired shrub-scrub cover. The refuge would participate in wood duck banding programs and try to obtain refuge quotas as assigned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service national Migratory Bird program, and limit human access to key areas used by waterfowl to reduce disturbance during critical life cycle stages. Forest-breeding bird populations would be enhanced through improved nesting, brooding, and foraging opportunities by application of active habitat manipulation techniques within bottomland hardwood forested habitats and streamside management zones. Even and uneven aged silviculture, including selective thinning, patch cuts, group tree selections, clearcuts, timber stand improvements, chemical treatments, and other methods, could be used to ensure hardwood species diversity, red oak recruitment into the overstory, and forest structure for the benefit of a diversity of wildlife. The number of red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) clusters would be based on continuous pine habitat as defined by historic conditions and the optimal partition size of 308 acres based on the 100-year rotation. Mathematically this suggests that the maximum number of clusters feasible on the refuge is 38. However, due to natural habitat variation within the management units, habitat loss between the circular partitions, habitat loss due to inholding, and edge effects due to bordering lands or hardwood habitats, the optimal number and new refuge target goal would be 27 RCW clusters. All RCW partitions would be managed according to the RCW Recovery Plan. Habitat manipulations used to benefit RCWs could include silvicultural practices (e.g., active forest management, including but not limited to manual or mechanized pre-commercial thinning, commercial biomass thinning, mulching, firewood cutting, timber stand improvements, herbicide, irregular shelterwood, shelterwood, seedtree, patch cuts, afforestation, reforestation, and free thinning), prescribed fire, raking, mowing, creation of new artificial cavities, maintenance of suitable cavities, midstory reduction (chemical and/or mechanical control), integrated pest management, use of restrictor plates on cavities, snake exclusion devices, and kleptoparasite control. In order to sustain forest resources for future RCW habitat, harvesting of existing mature forests as part of regeneration efforts within present and future partitions would occur. No additional, non-historic pine habitats would be maintained or converted for support of the RCW to pine. Refuge staff and possibly contractors would continue to scientifically monitor RCWs through nest and fledge checks. Additional quantitative monitoring of a broad suite of wildlife and their habitats will be sought through Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs), universities and volunteers and participate in the Refuge System's Inventory and Monitoring program for development of standardized survey methods, cataloging and analyzing refuge information. Efforts would be made to prevent the establishment of exotic invasive, and pest species. Deep-water habitats within Bluff Lake would be created through dirt excavation to ensure consistency in recreational fisheries resources (i.e., crappie, bass, and sunfish). Excavated soil from the creation of the deepwater habitat would be used to create islands within the lake to serve as bird rookery sites. Other existing water control structures on Bluff Lake and in areas upstream of the lake would also be modified or removed to allow fish passage. Paddlefish and Gulf Coast Walleye would benefit from the restoration. Additional ephemeral pools for amphibians would be artificially created throughout the refuge through excavation in areas where excess water impedes road maintenance or threatens sedimentation of streams. The Morgan Hill Prairie Demonstration Area would remain but be reduced by more than 50 percent in size and the remaining area would be restored into habitats similar to that indicated by historic conditions. Existing old fields that would not be a direct benefit to federally protected species or waterfowl would continue to be managed as old field sites for the benefit of native grassland species. Old fields that would be a direct benefit to federally protected species or waterfowl would be restored to historical species compositions through natural regeneration or the manual planting of trees. No new field sites would be created. Active forest management including silvicultural treatments, prescribed fire, chemical and/or mechanical midstory reduction would occur throughout the refuge's habitats to achieve desired historic forest conditions, greater habitat diversity and forest structure to benefit RCW, forest interior birds and a wider range of native wildlife. Upland forests would be managed for historic conditions and when applicable management would emphasize providing the needed habitat for federally listed species. If needed to support federally listed species, active forest management would occur using a variety of techniques including timber harvest, prescribed fire, chemical and/or mechanical midstory reduction.
To protect cultural resources, completing a comprehensive, refuge-
The current level of visitor services programs would be expanded for the general public and attempts made to provide more access for users with disabilities and youth. The Service would develop a week-long, large game (turkey and deer) hunt program to provide increased opportunities for disabled hunters in exchange for a week reduction in the general gun deer and turkey seasons. Deer hunting opportunities overall would be increased. The Service would work with the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks to develop family hunting and fishing opportunities. Fishing opportunities would be expanded to include year-round designated bank fishing areas on Bluff and Loakfoma Lakes. Other wildlife-dependent uses and their supporting facilities would be maintained and enhanced through upgrades or additional facilities. Alternative funding mechanisms, such as a general user fee under the Fee Program, and partnerships would be used to spread costs of programs across all users possibly eliminating the need for separate hunting related fees. The existing visitor services programs would be increased. This alternative would establish a “Connecting People with Nature” area to consolidate activities and users requiring greater support to enjoy wildlife observation activities. Existing activities that are not considered wildlife dependent uses such as a picnicking area and off-road mountain biking, would not be allowed but more opportunities for bicycling, walking and connecting with nature would be offered through designed trails with increased accessibility for disabled Americans. All existing wildlife dependent uses and the supporting facilities would be maintained and, if resources are available, enhanced through possible increase and better maintenance in overlooks, boardwalks, and trails. An effort would be made to increase visitor safety and enjoyment through establishment of parking areas, improved management of vehicle flow, creation of paved walking and biking trails, and roadside bike lanes along Bluff Lake and Loakfoma Roads. Refuge regulatory and informational signs would receive priority. Partnerships to conduct environmental education and off-site activities and increase volunteer involvement in all its programs would be established. More effort would be placed toward developing cooperative programs sponsored through the Friends.
The current staff of 13 employees would be reorganized under this goal of reaching an optimal staff level of 18 as recommended within the 2008 Final Report for the Staffing Model for Field Stations. This alternative would continue participation in the existing Fee Program. Changes within the program would include establishment of a general access pass for all users to assist in the maintenance and development of public use programs and facilities (e.g., Daily Pass, Weekly Pass or Annual Pass). Current federal duck stamps and other congressionally authorized entrance fee passes would be accepted as a refuge access pass.
After the comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and address them.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
This notice is published under the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd
30-Day notice.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is notifying the public that we have submitted an information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR pertains to a new survey to be conducted in northern coastal Alaska communities. This notice provides the public a second opportunity to comment on the paperwork burden of this collection.
Submit written comments by August 29, 2014.
Submit comments on this ICR to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or
Arlene Bajusz, Office of Policy, Regulations, and Analysis at
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) requires that all Federal agencies use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences in any planning and decision making that may have an effect on the human environment. The Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations for Implementing Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) state that the “human environment” is to be “interpreted comprehensively” to include “the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment” (40 CFR 1508.14). An action's “aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social or health” effects must be assessed, “whether direct, indirect, or cumulative” (40 CFR 1508.8).
The BOEM is the DOI agency that conducts OCS lease sales and monitors and mitigates adverse impacts that might be associated with offshore resource development. The BOEM Environmental Studies Program implements and manages the responsibilities of research. This new survey will facilitate the meeting of DOI/BOEM information needs by quantifying measures of well-being and the living conditions of residents in coastal Alaska areas, with specific focus on six Iñupiat coastal Alaska Native communities in the North Slope Borough (Barrow, Point Hope, Wainwright, Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, Point Lay).
The BOEM will use the information collected from this survey to learn about local social systems and well-being in a way that may shape development strategies and serve as an interim baseline for impact mitigation and/or monitoring to compare against future research in these areas. With these data, BOEM will improve information to make informed oil and gas leasing and development decisions for these areas. The studies will help BOEM identify and mitigate impacts of offshore oil and gas exploration and development on Alaska Native communities.
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our burden estimates;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on respondents.
To comply with the public consultation process, on March 14, 2014, BOEM published a
This survey collection is not a result of the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in an EIS. The collection is linked to the Arctic Social Indicators Project, an outgrowth of the Arctic Human Development Report of 2004 conducted under the auspices of the Arctic Council's Sustainable Development Working Group (Arctic Social Indicators 2010). HIA involves a more specific set of questions about health status in the communities, whereas the Social Indicators study, designed to assess respondents' sense of well-being, explores six domains, one of which is health.
The NSB Baseline Community Health Analysis Report was not completed until June 2012, after the Social Indicators contract was awarded. The designs of both the Baseline Community Health Analysis Report and the Social Indicators survey are complementary because they are derived from the same parent document, the NSB Census of 2010. The Social Indicators survey results will be shared with the NSB. Some of the survey questions will correspond with the NSB Community Health Analysis Report and will support decision making at all levels of government. The 2010 NSB Census includes the same overall health questions that were asked by the Survey of Living Conditions in the Arctic (SLiCA) conducted by Dr. Kruse in collaboration with the NSB in 2003. These same questions were approved by the North Slope Management Board (NSMB) for the BOEM Social Indicators survey. The project report will be the venue to address emerging trends, including if the health environment has been impacted by resource development, not the survey instrument.
The chair and the members of the NSMB are serving on a voluntary basis. Representatives are from the communities of Barrow, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, Point Lay, and Point Hope. Since the members of the NSMB are volunteers, the BOEM prefers not to disclose their names in this document. As for the survey design, the contractor, Stephen R. Braund & Assoc. (SRBA), held a workshop for the NSMB in Barrow in April 2012 to discuss survey content and design. The Social Indicators survey is based upon a pool of questions derived from previous research conducted in collaboration with the NSB (e.g., SLiCA). The questions correlate directly with domains identified in the Arctic Social Indicators Report, 2010, an outgrowth of the Arctic Human Development Report of 2004 conducted under the auspices of the Arctic Council's Sustainable Working Group, and the BOEM Social Indicators contract. Subsequently, SRBA generated a survey instrument for review by OMB to obtain a control number. SRBA consulted again with the NSMB in September 2012 before the survey instrument was provided to BOEM for the OMB submission. This submission was delayed for a year to perform a Privacy Act Impact Assessment, now completed.
BOEM is concerned about the burden of effort and therefore limits the survey to heads of households (HH), as the HH is the individual with the knowledge and authority to address all of the questions asked. The HH may be an adult male or female of any age over 18. This is the standard best practice among social scientists conducting surveys, including Dr. Gary Kofinas's “The Study of Sharing Networks to Assess the Vulnerabilities of Local Communities to Oil & Gas Development in Arctic Alaska,” also funded by BOEM.
A variety of individuals from each North Slope coastal community and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission were involved in selecting the survey questions. BOEM selected the contractor through a competitive bidding process based on the merits of the technical proposal and expertise of the contractor.
BOEM and its project contractors are highly concerned about survey fatigue and the importance of coordinating with others who conduct research among the Iñupiat of the North Slope. BOEM has coordinated with other entities doing research. However, BOEM has found that even though there are surveys that may ask a similar question, none fully address the sense of well-being as this Social Indicators survey is designed to assess. BOEM and SRBA are leaders in the field of social research and well understand and are sensitive to the problems of public burden and survey fatigue. Once BOEM receives OMB approval, BOEM and SRBA will coordinate with local and regional authorities to schedule the Social Indicators survey implementation.
In this notice, BOEM is also responding to a comment received on a
The commenter suggested the use of Dillman's
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The following Water Management Plans are available for review:
To meet the requirements of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 and the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, the Bureau of Reclamation developed and published the Criteria for Evaluating Water Management Plans (Criteria). For the purpose of this announcement, Water Management Plans (Plans) are considered the same as Water Conservation Plans. The above entities have each developed a Plan, which Reclamation has evaluated and preliminarily determined to meet the requirements of these Criteria. Reclamation is publishing this notice in order to allow the public to review the Plans and comment on the preliminary determinations. Public comment on Reclamation's preliminary (i.e., draft) determination of Plan adequacy is invited at this time.
All public comments must be received by August 29, 2014.
Please mail comments to Ms. Melissa Crandell, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, MP-410, Sacramento, California 95825, or email at
To be placed on a mailing list for any subsequent information, please contact Ms. Crandell at the email address above or 916-978-5208 (TDD 978-5608).
We are inviting the public to comment on our preliminary (i.e., draft) determination of Plan adequacy. Section 3405(e) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Title 34 Pub. L. 102-575), requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish and administer an office on Central Valley Project water conservation best management practices that shall “develop criteria for evaluating the adequacy of all water conservation plans developed by project contractors, including those plans required by section 210 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982.” Also, according to Section 3405(e)(1), these criteria must be developed “with the purpose of promoting the highest level of water use efficiency reasonably achievable by project contractors using best available cost-effective technology and best management practices.” These criteria state that all parties (Contractors) that contract with Reclamation for water supplies (municipal and industrial contracts over 2,000 acre-feet and agricultural contracts over 2,000 irrigable acres) must prepare a Plan that contains the following information:
1. Description of the District;
2. Inventory of Water Resources;
3. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Agricultural Contractors;
4. BMPs for Urban Contractors;
5. Plan Implementation;
6. Exemption Process;
7. Regional Criteria; and
8. Five-Year Revisions.
Reclamation evaluates Plans based on these criteria. A copy of these Plans will be available for review at Reclamation's Mid-Pacific Regional Office, 2800 Cottage Way, MP-410, Sacramento, California 95825. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. If you wish to review a copy of these Plans, please contact Ms. Crandell.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has issued (1) a limited exclusion order against infringing products of respondents previously found in default,
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. 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
The Commission instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on September 20, 2013, based on a complaint filed by Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. of Japan; Toyo Tire Holdings of Americas Inc. of Cypress, California; Toyo Tire U.S.A. Corp. of Cypress, California; Nitto Tire U.S.A. Inc. of Cypress, California; and Toyo Tire North America Manufacturing Inc. of White, Georgia (collectively, “Toyo”). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Design Patent Nos. D487,424 (“the `424 patent”); D610,975; D610,976 (“the `976 patent”); D610,977 (“the `977 patent”); D615,031; D626,913 (“the `913 patent”); D458,214 (“the `214 patent”); and D653,200 by numerous respondents. 78
On November 18, 2013, the ALJ ordered certain respondents, including WestKY, Tire & Wheel Master, Vittore, and RTM, to show cause by December 4, 2013, why they should not be held in default for failing to respond to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation.
On December 24, 2013, the ALJ ordered respondents Turbo, Lexani, and WTD to show cause by January 10, 2014, why they should not be held in default for failing to respond to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation.
On January 28, 2014, the ALJ ordered respondent Simple Tire to show cause by February 12, 2014, why it should not be held in default for failing to respond to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation.
The Commission found that the statutory requirements of section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) and Commission rule 210.16(a) (19 CFR 210.16(a)) are met with respect to the Defaulting Respondents. 79
The Commission requested briefing from the parties and the public on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. 79
The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief in this investigation is a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of certain tires and products containing same that are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of, the Defaulting Respondents by reason of infringement of one or more of the `424 patent; the `976 patent; the `977 patent; the `913 patent; and the `214 patent. The Commission has also determined to issue cease and desist orders directed against each of the Defaulting Respondents which prohibit,
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.
Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Notice of open meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure will hold a one-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation.
October 20, 2014.
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Mecham Conference Center, One Columbus Circle NE., Washington, DC 20544.
Jonathan C. Rose, Secretary and Chief Rules Officer, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
On April 8, 2014, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Franklyn Seabrooks, M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant), of Fairfield, California. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration BS4003795, which authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in schedules II-V as a practitioner, on the ground that he does “not have authority to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in the [S]tate of California.” Show Cause Order at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3)).
The Show Cause Order alleged that Registrant is registered as a practitioner in Schedules II-V at the registered address of 5140 Business Center Drive, Suite 109, Fairfield, California. Show Cause Order at 1. The Show Cause Order further alleged that this registration does not expire until February 28, 2015.
Next, the Show Cause Order alleged that Registrant is currently without authority to handle controlled substances in California, the State in which he is registered, because on July 12, 2012, the Medical Board of California (MBC) filed a “Petition for Ex Parte Interim Suspension Order,” which was granted the following day by the Medical Quality Hearing Panel (“Hearing Panel”) of the State's Office of Administrative Hearings, thereby suspending Registrant's Physician's and Surgeon's license on an interim basis.
According to the Declaration of a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI), on April 11, 2014, the Order to Show Cause was served on Registrant at his home unit at the Napa State Hospital. GX 2. The DI stated on that date, he and a DEA Special Agent attempted to personally serve Respondent after being advised by Respondent's attorney that Respondent was a patient at that facility.
On May 5, 2014, the DEA Office of Administrative Law Judges received a letter from David Brown, Esq., an attorney with the law firm of Beyer, Pongratz & Rosen, in Sacramento, CA. GX 8. The letter, which is dated April 30, 2014 and appears to be printed on the law firm's letterhead, states: “The undersigned, David L. Brown, hereby waives a hearing regarding the Order to Show Cause regarding Franklyn E. Seabrooks, M.D. and his DEA Certificate of Registration.”
Notwithstanding that the letter was not signed, I note that the law firm on the letterhead is the same firm that represented Registrant before the MBC. I therefore find that Mr. Brown is Registrant's attorney and based on his representation in the letter, I find that Registrant has waived his right to a hearing or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). I therefore issue this Decision and Order based on relevant material contained in the record submitted by the Government. I make the following factual findings:
Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration BS4003795, which authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in schedules II-V as a practitioner, at the registered address of 5140 Business Center Drive, Suite 109, Fairfield CA. GX 3. This registration does not expire until February 28, 2015.
On July 13, 2012, an administrative law judge (ALJ) of the Office of Administrative Hearings, Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California, heard a petition for Ex Parte Interim Suspension of Registrant's Physician's and Surgeons' Certificate (hereinafter, medical license). GX 4. Following an evidentiary hearing during which Registrant was neither present nor represented but submitted documents for consideration by the ALJ, the ALJ ordered the immediate suspension of Registrant's medical license. The ALJ found,
On October 29, 2012, the hearing was held before another state ALJ. GX 5. At the hearing, Registrant was represented by counsel, oral and documentary evidence was presented, and oral argument was offered. Following the hearing, the ALJ found that Registrant “has engaged in acts or omissions constituting a violation of the Medical Practice Act and that he is unable to practice medicine safely due to a mental or physical condition, and that permitting [him] to continue to engage in the practice of medicine will endanger the public health, safety or welfare.”
On September 30, 2013, a further hearing was held before a third state ALJ. GX 6. Registrant was represented by counsel but did not personally appear. The ALJ found that “due to his mental impairment, [Registrant] has engaged in unprofessional conduct on multiple occasions,” that “[c]ause exists to revoke [his] Physician's and Surgeon's certificate,” that his ability to practice medicine safely is impaired because he is “mentally ill, or physically ill affecting competency,” and that “at this time, protection of the public can be achieved only through license revocation.”
In his letter waiving Registrant's right to a hearing, Registrant's counsel acknowledges that Registrant's medical certificate had been revoked by the MBC. GX 8, at 2. The letter then states that the state ALJ “specifically left open the possibility of reinstatement of [Registrant's] medical certificate upon satisfaction of Business and Professions Code section 822.”
An internet search of the MBC's public record actions Web page reveals that Registrant's medical license remains revoked.
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) grants the Attorney General authority to revoke a registration “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended [or] revoked . . . and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . distribution [or] dispensing of controlled substances.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3). Moreover, DEA has long held that a practitioner must be currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the “jurisdiction in which [he] practices” in order to maintain a DEA registration.
Here, the evidence shows that Respondent's medical license has been revoked and that he no longer holds authority under California law to dispense controlled substances. Registrant is therefore not entitled to maintain his DEA registration.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I order that DEA Certificate of Registration BS4003795, issued to Franklyn Seabrooks, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of Franklyn Seabrooks, M.D., to renew or modify his registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective August 29, 2014.
On February 19, 2014, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Robert V. Cattani, M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant, of Staten Island, New York. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration AC6553437, which authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner, on the ground that he does not possess “authority to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in the State of New York, the State in which [he is] registered.” Show Cause Order at 1.
The Show Cause Order alleged that Registrant is registered as a practitioner in schedules II through V at the registered location of 450 Slosson Avenue, Staten Island, New York and that his registration does not expire until August 31, 2014.
On March 4, 2014, two DEA Diversion Investigators (DIs) went to a residence located in Lloyd Harbor, New York, which they believed was Registrant's residence. GX 2, at 3. Beforehand, they went to the post office which services this address and confirmed that Registrant was still receiving mail at this address.
As the DIs were walking away, a male opened the door from inside and retrieved the envelope; the DI asked the person if he was Registrant.
On leaving the residence, the DI also noted the license plate number of a vehicle parked in the driveway.
Based on the above, I find that Registrant has been served with the Order to Show Cause. Based on the Government's representation that since the date of service, neither Registrant, nor any person purporting to represent him, “has requested a hearing or otherwise corresponded with DEA” regarding the Show Cause Order, and finding that more than thirty (30 days) have no passed, I find that Registrant has waived his right to request a hearing or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing. 21 CFR 1301.43(d). I therefore issue this Decision and Final
Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration AC6553437, which authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner at the registered address of 450 Slosson Avenue, Staten Island, New York. GX 2A. His registration does not expire until August 31, 2014.
On November 2, 2011, the New York Bureau of Professional Medical Conduct issued a Statement of Charges to Registrant, alleging,
Thereafter, a Hearing Committee of the State Board conducted a hearing. On September 10, 2012, the Committee issued its Determination and Order in which it found most of the charges proved and determined that “the only way to ensure the safety of the public is to revoke [Registrant's] medical license.” GX 2I, at 42. The Committee thus ordered the revocation of Registrant's medical license, effective upon service of the order.
Registrant then sought review from the New York Department of Health Administrative Review Board (ARB). GX 2J. On or about April 4, 2013, the ARB issued its Determination and Order, affirming the Hearing Committee's determinations that Registrant “committed professional misconduct” and to revoke his medical license.
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) grants the Attorney General authority to revoke a registration “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended [or] revoked . . . and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . distribution [or] dispensing of controlled substances.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3). Moreover, DEA has long held that a practitioner must be currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the “jurisdiction in which [he] practices” in order to maintain a DEA registration.
Here, the evidence shows that Respondent's medical license has been revoked and that he no longer holds authority under New York law to dispense controlled substances. Registrant is therefore not entitled to maintain his DEA registration.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I order that DEA Certificate of Registration AC6553437, issued to Robert V. Cattani, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of Robert V. Cattani, M.D., to renew or modify his registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective August 29, 2014.
Notice.
On July 31, 2014, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Nondiscrimination Compliance Information Reporting Under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998,” 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 September 2, 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-DM, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for a revision to the Nondiscrimination Compliance Information Reporting Under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) information collection that provides data used to help ensure a recipient of DOL Federal financial assistance does not discriminate in the administration, management, or operation of programs and activities. Information collections covered by this ICR include (1) a grant applicant providing assurance that the applicant is aware of and, as a condition of receipt of Federal financial assistance, agrees to comply with the assurance requirements; (2) a DOL funds recipient maintaining a record of equal opportunity (EO) characteristics data and a log of any EO complaints for activities under a DOL funded WIA program; (3) a person who believes a relevant EO requirement may have been violated filing a complaint with either the funds recipient or with the DOL, Civil Rights Center; (4) a State periodically filing a plan outlining administrative methods the State will use to ensure WIA funds are not used in a discriminatory manner; and (5) a DOL funds recipient posting required notices. This information collection has been classified as a revision, because the DOL wants to make a minor change to the Complaint Information Form (Form DL-1-2014A) to clarify the information requested. WIA section 185 authorizes 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.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Standard on Excavations (Design of Cave-in Protection Systems) (29 CFR part 1926, subpart P).
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by September 29, 2014.
Michael Buchet, Directorate of Construction, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3468, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2020.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 1926.652 (“Requirements for Protective Systems”; the “Standard”) contain paperwork requirements that impose burden hours or costs on employers. These paragraphs require employers to use protective systems to prevent cave-ins during excavation work; these systems include sloping the side of the trench, benching the soil away from the excavation, or using a support system or shield (such as a trench box). The Standard specifies allowable configurations and slopes for excavations, and provides appendices to assist employers in designing protective systems. However, paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of the Standard permit employers to design sloping or benching systems based on tabulated data (Option 3), or to use a design approved by a registered professional engineer (Option 4).
Under Option 3, employers must provide the tabulated data in a written form that also identifies the registered professional engineer who approved the data and the parameters used to select the sloping or benching system drawn from the data, as well as the limitations of the data (including the magnitude and configuration of slopes determined to be safe). The document must also provide any explanatory information necessary to select the correct benching system based on the data. Option 2 requires employers to develop a written design approved by a registered professional engineer. The design information must include the magnitude and configuration of the slopes determined to be safe, and the identity of the registered professional engineer who approved the design.
Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) allows employers to use manufacturer's tabulated data or to deviate from the data provided. The manufacturer's specification, recommendations and limitations as well as the manufacturer's approval to deviate from these items shall be in writing. Paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) allow employers to design support systems, shield systems, and other protective systems based on tabulated data provided by a system manufacturer (Option 3) or obtained from other sources including a registered professional engineer and approved by a registered professional engineer (Option 4).
Each of these provisions requires employers to maintain a copy of the documents described in these options at the jobsite during construction. After construction is completed, employers may store the documents off-site provided they make them available to an OSHA compliance officer on request. These documents provide both the employer and the compliance officer with information needed to determine if the selection and design of a protective system are appropriate to the excavation work, thereby assuring workers of maximum protection against cave-ins.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
The Agency is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Standard on Excavations (Design of Cave-in Protection Systems). An increase in the number of construction starts from 706,000 starts to 761,873 contracted for projects/sites has resulted in an adjustment increase in burden hours from 11,813 to 14,266, a total increase of 2,453 burden hours.
OSHA reduced the number of apartment and non-residential construction sites that would use outside contractor engineering services for the required protective system design approval from 5,900 to 2,038. While there was an increase in the hourly wage for a civil engineer from $49.04 to $53.17, there is an overall adjustment decrease of −$359,687 from $578,672 to $218,985.
The Agency will summarize any comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Standard.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of Underwriters Laboratories Inc. for expansion of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before August 14, 2014.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing notice that Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), is applying for expansion of its current recognition as an NRTL. UL requests the addition of two test standards to its NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
UL currently has 15 facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at: Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062. A complete list of UL's scope of recognition is available at
UL submitted an application, dated April 3, 2014 (Exhibit 14-2—UL Application for Expansion of Test Standards), to expand its recognition to include two additional test standards. OSHA staff performed a comparability analysis and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found in UL's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
UL submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file and the comparability analysis indicate that UL can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition of these two test standards for NRTL testing and certification listed above. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of UL's application.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether UL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as an NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Room N-2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These materials also are available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant UL's application for expansion of its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the
David Michaels, PhD., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
This notice announces the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's final decision granting renewal of recognition of Southwest Research Institute, as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The renewal of recognition becomes effective on July 30, 2014.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification. OSHA maintains an informational Web site for each NRTL at
OSHA processes applications submitted by an NRTL for renewal of recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA conducts renewals in accordance with the procedures in 29 CFR 1910.7, App. A II.C. In accordance with these procedures, NRTLs submit a renewal request to OSHA between nine months and one year before the expiration date of its current recognition. A renewal request includes a request for renewal and any additional information demonstrating its continued compliance with the terms of its recognition and 29 CFR 1910.7. If OSHA has not conducted an on-site assessment of the NRTL headquarters and any key sites within the past 18 to 24 months, it will schedule the necessary on-site assessment prior to the expiration date of the NRTL's recognition. Upon review of the submitted material and, as necessary, the successful completion of the on-site assessment, OSHA announces its preliminary decision to grant or deny renewal in the
Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) initially received OSHA recognition as an NRTL on July 13, 1993 (58 FR 37752). The most recent renewal for SWRI was on February 28, 2007, for a five-year period expiring on February 28, 2012. SWRI submitted a timely request for renewal, dated May 26, 2011 (see Ex. OSHA-2006-0041-0003), and retained its recognition pending OSHA's final decision in this renewal process. The current address of the SWRI facility recognized by OSHA and included as part of the renewal request is Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, Post Office Drawer 28510, San Antonio, Texas 78238.
OSHA evaluated SWRI's application for renewal and made a preliminary determination that SWRI can continue to meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition. OSHA conducted an audit of SWRI on February 28-29, 2012, and found non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. SWRI addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL requirements. Accordingly, OSHA determined that it did not need to conduct an on-site review of SWRI's facilities for this renewal based on its evaluation of SWRI's application and all other available information.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing SWRI's renewal request in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to SWRI's application, go to
Pursuant to the authority granted under 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby gives notice of the renewal of recognition of SWRI as an NRTL. OSHA NRTL Program staff reviewed the renewal request for SWRI and other pertinent information. Based on this review of the renewal request for SWRI and other pertinent information, OSHA finds that SWRI meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for renewal of its recognition, subject to the specified limitation and conditions. OSHA limits the renewal of SWRI's recognition to include the terms and conditions of SWRI's scope of recognition. The scope of recognition for SWRI is available in the
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, SWRI also must abide by the following conditions of recognition:
1. SWRI must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as an NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. SWRI must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. SWRI must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on SWRI's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
This notice announces the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's final decision granting renewal of recognition of Communication Certification Laboratory, Inc., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The renewal of recognition becomes effective on July 30, 2014.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification. OSHA maintains an informational Web site for each NRTL at
OSHA processes applications submitted by an NRTL for renewal of recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA conducts renewals in accordance with the procedures in 29 CFR 1910.7, App. A II.C. In accordance with these procedures, NRTLs submit a renewal request to OSHA between nine months and one year before the expiration date of its current recognition. A renewal request includes a request for renewal and any additional information demonstrating its continued compliance with the terms of its recognition and 29 CFR 1910.7. If OSHA has not conducted an on-site assessment of the NRTL headquarters and any key sites within the past 18 to 24 months, it will schedule the necessary on-site assessment prior to the expiration date of the NRTL's recognition. Upon review of the submitted material and, as necessary, the successful completion of the on-site assessment, OSHA announces its preliminary decision to grant or deny renewal in the
Communication Certification Laboratory, Inc. (CCL), initially received OSHA recognition as an NRTL on June 21, 1991 (56 FR 28579). The most recent renewal for CCL was on June 10, 2005, for a five-year period expiring on June 10, 2010. CCL submitted a timely request for renewal, dated August 28, 2009 (see Ex. OSHA-2013-0016-0002), and retained its recognition pending OSHA's final decision in this renewal process. The current addresses of the CCL facility recognized by OSHA and included as part of the renewal request is CCL, 1940 West Alexander Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119.
OSHA evaluated CCL's application for renewal and made a preliminary determination that CCL can continue to meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition. OSHA conducted an audit of CCL's facilities on June 17-18, 2013, and found non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. CCL addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL requirements. Accordingly, OSHA determined that it did not need to conduct an on-site review of CCL's facilities for this request for renewal based on its evaluation of CCL's application and all other available information.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing CCL's renewal request in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to CCL's application, go to
Pursuant to the authority granted under 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby gives notice of the renewal of recognition of CCL as an NRTL. OSHA NRTL Program staff reviewed the renewal request for CCL and other pertinent information. Based on this review of the renewal request for CCL and other pertinent information, OSHA finds that CCL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for renewal of its recognition, subject to the specified limitation and conditions. OSHA limits the renewal of CCL's recognition to include the terms and conditions of CCL's scope of recognition. The scope of recognition for CCL is available in the
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, CCL also must abide by the following conditions of recognition:
1. CCL must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as an NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. CCL must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. CCL must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on CCL's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
This notice announces the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's final decision granting renewal of recognition of TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The renewal of recognition becomes effective on July 30, 2014.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification. OSHA maintains an informational Web site for each NRTL at
OSHA processes applications submitted by an NRTL for renewal of recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA conducts renewals in accordance with the procedures in 29 CFR 1910.7, App. A II.C. In accordance with these procedures, NRTLs submit a renewal request to OSHA between nine months and one year before the expiration date of its current recognition. A renewal request includes a request for renewal and any additional information demonstrating its continued compliance with the terms of its recognition and 29 CFR 1910.7. If OSHA has not conducted an on-site assessment of the NRTL headquarters and any key sites within the past 18 to 24 months, it will schedule the necessary on-site assessment prior to the expiration date of the NRTL's recognition. Upon review of the submitted material and, as necessary, the successful completion of the on-site assessment, OSHA announces its preliminary decision to grant or deny renewal in the
TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. (TUVRNA), initially received OSHA recognition as an NRTL on August 16, 1995 (60 FR 42594). The most recent renewal for TUVRNA was on March 18, 2002, for a five-year period expiring on March 19, 2007. TUVRNA submitted a timely request for renewal, dated June 12, 2006 (see Ex. OSHA-2007-0042-0007), and retained its recognition pending OSHA's final decision in this renewal process. The current addresses of TUVRNA facilities recognized by OSHA and included as part of the renewal request are:
1. TUVRNA Newtown, 12 Commerce Road, Newtown, Connecticut 06470; and
2. TUVRNA Austin, 2324 Ridgepoint Drive, Suite E, Austin, Texas 78754.
OSHA evaluated TUVRNA's application for renewal and made a preliminary determination that TUVRNA can continue to meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition. OSHA conducted audits of TUVRNA's headquarters, TUVRNA Newtown, on July 25-26, 2013, and the TUVRNA Austin site on August 23-25, 2010. OSHA found non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. TUVRNA addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL requirements. Accordingly, OSHA determined that it did not need to conduct an on-site review of TUVRNA's facilities for this request for renewal based on its evaluation of TUVRNA's application and all other available information.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing TUVRNA's renewal request in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to TUVRNA's application, go to
Pursuant to the authority granted under 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby gives notice of the renewal of recognition of TUVRNA as an NRTL. OSHA NRTL Program staff reviewed the renewal request for TUVRNA and other pertinent information. Based on this review of the renewal request for TUVRNA and other pertinent information, OSHA finds that TUVRNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for renewal of its recognition, subject to the specified limitation and conditions. OSHA limits the renewal of TUVRNA's recognition to include the terms and conditions of TUVRNA's scope of recognition. The scope of recognition for TUVRNA is available in the
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, TUVRNA also must abide by the following conditions of recognition:
1. TUVRNA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as an NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. TUVRNA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. TUVRNA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on TUVRNA's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice.
NARA is giving public notice that the agency has submitted to OMB for approval the information collection described in this notice. The public is invited to comment on the proposed information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted to OMB at the address below on or before August 29, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments to Mr. Nicholas A. Fraser, Desk Officer for NARA, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5167; or electronically mailed to
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collection and supporting statement should be directed to Tamee Fechhelm at telephone number 301-837-1694 or fax number 301-713-7409.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. NARA published a notice of proposed collection for this information collection on May 20, 2014 (79 FR 28969). No comments were received. NARA has submitted the described information collections to OMB for approval.
In response to this notice, comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA; (b) the accuracy of NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (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 the use of information technology; and (e) whether small businesses are affected by this collection. In this notice, NARA is soliciting comments concerning the following information collections:
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit modification request received under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of requests to modify permits issued to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 45 part 670 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of a requested permit modification.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by August 29, 2014. Permit applications may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Division of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Li Ling Hamady, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address or
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
Now the applicant proposes a modification to the permit to track individual Gentoo penguin movements and site fidelity using implantable PIT (Passive Integrated Transponder) tags, and assess relatedness within a colony using genetic techniques from small (0.5ml) blood samples.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly-available documents, including the final supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC's Web site:
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by August 29, 2014. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
Comments can also be emailed to
The Acting NRC Clearance Officer is Kristen Benney, telephone: 301-415-6355.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly-available documents, including the final supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC's Web site:
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by August 29, 2014. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. Danielle Y. Jones, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0135), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments can also be emailed to
The Acting NRC Clearance Officer is Kristen Benney, telephone: 301-415-6355.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment about our intention to request the OMB's approval for renewal of an existing information collection that is summarized below. We are required to publish this notice in the
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Submit, by September 29, 2014, comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly-available documents, including the draft supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC's Web site:
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. Comments submitted should reference Docket No. NRC-2014-0174. You may submit your comments by any of the following methods: Electronic comments go to
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Kristen Benney (T-5 F50), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-6355, or by email to
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Confirmatory order; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a confirmatory order to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., confirming agreements reached in an Alternative Dispute Resolution session held on May 15, 2014. As part of the agreement, Entergy will take actions to verify security staff and management training credentials,
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0175 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
•
•
•
Patricia Lougheed, Region III, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 630-810-4376, email:
The text of the Order is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In the Matter of: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Palisades Nuclear Plant, Docket No. 05000255, License No. DPR-20, EA-14-013.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Licensee or Entergy) is the holder of Reactor Operating License No. DPR-20 issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50 on March 24, 1971, and renewed on January 17, 2007. The license authorizes the operation of the Palisades Nuclear Plant in accordance with conditions specified therein.
This Confirmatory Order is the result of an agreement reached during an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mediation session conducted on May 15, 2014.
On May 10, 2013, the NRC Office of Investigations (OI), Region III Field Office initiated an investigation to determine whether employees at the Palisades Nuclear Plant (Palisades) willfully failed to follow the security plan requirements, when a security manager assigned a security operations supervisor to perform duties without confirming whether the supervisor had the appropriate qualifications. The investigation also assessed whether the security operations supervisor assumed those duties as requested. The investigation was completed on January 9, 2014, and was documented in OI Report No. 3-2013-018. The investigation concluded that both the security manager and the security operations supervisor willfully violated 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix B, II B., “Qualification Requirements” and Palisades Security Plan Section 3.1.
Specifically, in mid-December 2012, a supervisory security individual at Palisades requested leave for Christmas Eve. In order to grant at least part of the individual's request, a security manager requested a security operations supervisor to fill two hours of the individual's shift. At multiple times during the conversation, the security operations supervisor informed the security manager that his technical supervisory qualifications were not completed. The security manager acknowledged that he was aware that the security operations supervisor's qualifications were not completed. However, the security manager stated that he believed that only meant the security operations supervisor was not qualified to perform one particular job function, and he stated that the security operations supervisor would not need to perform that job function during the two hours where he would be filling in for the other supervisor. Neither the security manager nor the security operations supervisor verified the qualifications for the position despite a site requirement to check qualifications before assigning or assuming posts. The security manager stated that he did not review the security plan or check with anyone on the security operations supervisor's qualifications until the end of April after two condition reports were written questioning the decision. The security operations supervisor stated that he relied upon what the security manager told him, as to why it was acceptable to assume the post. The security operations supervisor also said that he was not challenged on his qualifications prior to assuming the post, although that was a routine practice.
Both the security manager and the security operations supervisor failed to verify the security operations supervisor's qualification for a position prior to having him assume that position for two hours on December 24, 2012. The NRC determined that this was a violation of 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix B, II B., “Qualification Requirements” and Palisades Security Plan Section 3.1. Specifically, 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix B, II B., “Qualification Requirements” requires that each person who performs security-related job tasks or job duties required to implement the licensee physical security or contingency plan shall, prior to being assigned to duties, be qualified in accordance with the licensee's NRC-approved training and qualifications plan.
Section 3.1 of the Palisades Nuclear Plant Physical Security Plan, Appendix B, Revision 14, required, in part, that each individual assigned duties and responsibilities identified in the security plans, licensee protective strategy, and implementing procedures must before assignment: (1) Be trained and qualified to perform assigned duties and responsibilities in accordance with the requirements of the training and qualification plan; (2) meet the minimum qualification requirements of the training and qualification plan; and
On May 15, 2014, Entergy and the NRC met in an ADR session mediated by a professional mediator, arranged through Cornell University's Institute on Conflict Resolution. ADR is a process in which a neutral mediator with no decision-making authority assists the parties in reaching an agreement on resolving any differences regarding the dispute. This confirmatory order is issued pursuant to the agreement reached during the ADR process.
In response to the NRC's offer, Entergy requested use of the NRC ADR process to resolve differences it had with the NRC. During the ADR session held on May 15, 2014, a preliminary settlement agreement was reached. The elements of the agreement, as signed by both parties, consisted of the following:
A. Verification of Training Credentials for Both Staff and Management:
A.1 Conduct fleet-wide review of qualifications of each duty position in security to ensure that the qualifications for each position are clear and verifiable by all parties (security officers, security supervisors, and security manager). The initial review and applicable procedure revisions shall be completed by November 30, 2014.
A.2 Verify and modify, if necessary, the applicable security procedure to ensure that both assignor and assignee validate qualifications before the assignee performs a duty position. This shall be completed by November 30, 2014.
A.3 Following completion of A.1 and A.2, training will be conducted on the changes. This shall be completed by June 30, 2015.
B. Strengthen Safety Culture: (1) Leadership, Safety Values, & Actions; (2) Problem Identification & Resolution; (3) Personal Accountability; (4) Work Processes; (5) Environment for Raising Concerns; and (6) Questioning Attitude & Proceeding In the Face of Uncertainty:
B.1 As part of its Security Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE) Action Plan, Entergy has completed the following actions at Palisades:
• Each Security Shift Supervisor has signed and posted a SCWE Commitment letter. (Completed March 6, 2014)
• Security management conducted refresher training for each security shift emphasizing the reporting of concerns, the drafting of Condition Reports (CRs), the Corrective Action Program (CAP), and the expectation of feedback on CRs. (Completed February 24, 2014)
• A volunteer from each security team was assigned as an ombudsman to provide security department members with a readily available and familiar person to whom they can raise concerns. Security management briefed the department on the new security ombudsman program and related activities. (Completed March 31, 2014)
• The Director, Regulatory & Performance Improvement, developed a security department “dashboard” of SCWE-related indicators, such as, CAP usage, the number and content of anonymous CRs, CAP backlog, average age of open CRs, employee concern program (ECP) usage, on-site NRC allegations, and security equipment status. (Completed March 7, 2014)
B.2 As part of its SCWE Action Plan, Entergy has committed to the following actions at Palisades. These actions are hereby incorporated into the Confirmatory Order:
• Through June 30, 2016, the Palisades Security Manager shall meet quarterly (during the calendar quarter, allowing for one month grace period) with each security team: (a) To reinforce the importance of a healthy SCWE and management's intolerance for retaliation, and (b) to discuss security concerns and issue resolution.
• Through June 30, 2016, security management shall maintain and update a “Security Top 10 Issues” board to reflect, among other things, the expected issues resolution dates.
B.3 Revise procedure EN-LI-102 to ensure that the Condition Review Group (CRG) chair considers whether the person assigned is sufficiently independent. This applies to condition reports that have challenges to a decision or a resolution that is highly dependent on a single individual. A “read and sign” will be provided to each CRG chair to inform them of the procedure revision. The procedure will be revised by November 30, 2014, and the “read and sign” training will be completed by January 31, 2015.
B.4.a Conduct a case study for supervisors and above throughout the fleet that highlights safety culture aspects of the event: Questioning attitude, proceeding in the face of uncertainty, procedure compliance, and responsiveness to employee concerns. The case study will be developed and conducted by June 30, 2015.
B.4.b Discuss the safety culture aspects of the issue with Entergy and long-term contract staff at three monthly tailgate meetings. The tailgate meetings shall include employee rights, licensee expectations with respect to raising issues, methods to raise issues, and the right to contact the NRC. The action will be completed by December 31, 2014.
C. Recognition by the Reactor Community:
C.1 Entergy Fleet Director of Nuclear Security shall make a presentation to an industry security working group on this event. The licensee will provide the NRC an opportunity to review the presentation. This shall be accomplished by December 31, 2014.
C.2 Entergy shall make a related presentation at a broad industry meeting(s) that covers all four regions beyond security organizations. This shall be accomplished by June 30, 2015.
D. Setting Standards for Security Senior Management:
Entergy shall revise EN-FAP-HR-006 to include specific requirements for Security Manager selection and development. This shall be accomplished by December 31, 2014.
E. Effectiveness Review:
Entergy shall arrange for an independent effectiveness review of the actions discussed in sections A and B. The review will be conducted no earlier than one year, but less than two years, from the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order.
F. Notification of NRC When Actions Are Completed:
F.1. Unless otherwise specified, Entergy will submit written notification by letter to the NRC staff, specifically, the Director, Division of Reactor Safety, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL, 60532, at intervals of six months, one year, and annually thereafter until the terms of the Confirmatory Order are completed, providing a status of each item in the Confirmatory Order.
F.2. Upon completion of all terms of the Confirmatory Order, Entergy will provide the NRC with a letter discussing its basis for concluding that the Order has been satisfied.
G. Administrative Items:
G.1 The NRC and Entergy agree that the issues described above resulted in an individual inappropriately holding a position for which he was not qualified, contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix B, II B., “Qualification Requirements” and the Palisades Security Plan. Entergy does not agree that the violation was committed willfully, and on this point, the parties agree to disagree.
G.2 The NRC will issue a green finding with a cross-cutting aspect in the area of H.13, “Consistent Process,” but in consideration of the commitments delineated above, the NRC agrees to refrain from issuing a Notice of Violation or proposing a civil penalty for all matters discussed in the
G.3 The NRC considers the corrective actions and enhancements discussed above to be appropriately prompt and comprehensive to address the causes which gave rise to the incident discussed in the NRC's letter of March 25, 2014 (EA-14-013).
G.4 The NRC will consider the Confirmatory Order as an escalated enforcement action.
G.5 This agreement is binding upon successors and assigns of Entergy.
On July 14, 2014, Entergy consented to issuing this Confirmatory Order with the commitments, as described in Section V below. Entergy further agreed that this Confirmatory Order is to be effective 30 days after issuance of the Confirmatory Order and that it has waived its right to a hearing.
Since the licensee has agreed to take additional actions to address NRC concerns, as set forth in Section III above, the NRC has concluded that its concerns can be resolved through issuance of this Confirmatory Order.
I find that Entergy's commitments as set forth in Section V are acceptable and necessary and conclude that with these commitments the public health and safety are reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that public health and safety require that Entergy's commitments be confirmed by this Confirmatory Order. Based on the above and Entergy's consent, this Confirmatory Order is effective 30 days after issuance of the Confirmatory Order.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 104b, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Part 50, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE ACTIONS DESCRIBED BELOW WILL BE TAKEN AT PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT AND OTHER NUCLEAR PLANTS IN ENTERGY'S FLEET AND THAT LICENSE NO. DPR-20 IS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN AT THE PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT:
A. Verification of Training Credentials for both Staff and Management:
A.1 Conduct fleet-wide review of qualifications of each duty position in security to ensure that the qualifications for each position are clear and verifiable by all parties (security officers, security supervisors, and security manager). The initial review and applicable procedure revisions shall be completed by November 30, 2014.
A.2 Verify and modify, if necessary, the applicable security procedure to ensure that both assignor and assignee validate qualifications before the assignee performs a duty position. This shall be completed by November 30, 2014.
A.3 Following completion of A.1 and A.2, training will be conducted on the changes. This shall be completed by June 30, 2015.
B. Strengthen Safety Culture:
B.1 Through June 30, 2016, the Palisades Security Manager shall meet quarterly (during the calendar quarter, allowing for one month grace period) with each security team: (a) to reinforce the importance of a healthy SCWE and management's intolerance for retaliation, and (b) to discuss security concerns and issue resolution.
B.2 Through June 30, 2016, Palisades security management shall maintain and update a “Security Top 10 Issues” board to reflect, among other things, the expected issues resolution dates.
B.3 Discuss the safety culture aspects of the event with Palisades Nuclear Plant staff, including long-term contract staff, in three monthly tailgate meetings. The tailgate meetings shall include employee rights, licensee expectations with respect to raising issues, methods to raise issues, and the right to contact the NRC. The tailgate meetings will be completed by December 31, 2014.
B.4 Revise procedure EN-LI-102 to ensure that the Condition Review Group (CRG) chair considers whether the person assigned is sufficiently independent. This applies to condition reports that have challenges to a decision or a resolution that is highly dependent on a single individual. A “read and sign” will be provided to each Entergy (fleet-wide) CRG chair to inform them of the procedure revision. The procedure will be revised by November 30, 2014, and the “read and sign” training will be completed by January 31, 2015.
B.5 Conduct a case study for supervisors and above throughout the Entergy fleet that highlights safety culture aspects of the event: questioning attitude, proceeding in the face of uncertainty, procedure compliance, and responsiveness to employee concerns. The case study will be developed and conducted by June 30, 2015.
C. Recognition by the Reactor Community:
C.1 Entergy Fleet Director of Nuclear Security shall make a presentation to an industry security working group on this event. The licensee will provide the NRC an opportunity to review the presentation. The presentation shall be accomplished by December 31, 2014.
C.2 Entergy shall make a related presentation at a broad industry meeting aimed at an audience beyond the security organizations and covering all four NRC regions. It is acceptable to make the presentation at multiple meetings, if deemed necessary to reach the desired audience. The presentations shall be accomplished by June 30, 2015.
D. Setting Standards for Security Senior Management:
Entergy shall revise procedure EN-FAP-HR-006 to include specific requirements for Security Manager selection and development. This shall be accomplished by December 31, 2014.
E. Effectiveness Review:
Entergy shall arrange for an independent effectiveness review of the actions discussed in sections A and B. The review will be conducted no earlier than one year, but less than two years, from the issuance date of the Confirmatory Order.
F. Notification of NRC When Actions Are Completed:
F.1. Unless otherwise specified, Entergy will submit written notification by letter to the NRC staff, specifically, the Director, Division of Reactor Safety, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL, 60532, at intervals of six months, one year, and annually thereafter until the terms of the Confirmatory Order are completed, providing a status of each item in the Confirmatory Order.
F.2. Upon completion of all terms of the Confirmatory Order, Entergy will provide the NRC with a letter discussing its basis for concluding that the Order has been satisfied.
The Regional Administrator, Region III, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the Licensee of good cause.
Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., may request a hearing within 30 days of the issuance date of this Confirmatory Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be directed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and include a statement of good cause for the extension.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene through the EIE. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is available to the public at
If a person other than the licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f).
If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue a separate Order designating the time and place of any hearings, as appropriate. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be effective and final 30 days after issuance of the Confirmatory Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Zion Nuclear Power Station (ZNPS) Units 1 and 2 were permanently shut down in February 1998, for economic reasons. On February 13, 1998, Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd), the ZNPS licensee at that time, submitted a letter certifying the permanent cessation of operations at ZNPS, Units 1 and 2 (Agencywide Documents and Access Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. 9802200407). On March 9, 1998, ComEd submitted a letter certifying the permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessels at ZNPS (ADAMS Accession No. 9803110251). Pursuant to section 50.82(a)(2) of Title 10 of the
Section 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) states that decommissioning trust funds may be used by licensees if the withdrawals are for expenses for legitimate decommissioning activities consistent with the definition of decommissioning in 10 CFR 50.2. The definition of decommissioning in 10 CFR 50.2 reads as follows:
“to remove a facility or site safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits—
(1) Release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license; or
(2) Release of the property under restricted conditions and termination of the license.”
Similar to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A), provisions of 10 CFR 50.75(h)(1)(iv) and (h)(2) dictate that, with certain exceptions, disbursements from nuclear decommissioning trusts “are restricted to decommissioning expenses.” However, in accord with 10 CFR 50.75(h)(5), these provisions do not apply to “any licensee that as of December 24, 2003, has existing license conditions relating to decommissioning trust agreements, so long as the licensee does not elect to amend those license conditions.” The operating licenses for ZNPS included “existing license conditions relating to decommissioning trust agreements” on December 24, 2003, and as such, ZNPS is exempt from the provisions of paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of the regulations in 10 CFR 50.75, pursuant to the terms of 10 CFR 50.75(h)(5).
On June 4, 2013, (ADAMS Accession No. ML13157A05), ZS, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific Exemptions,” submitted a request for an exemption from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A), for the ZNPS. According to the licensee, the proposed exemptions would confirm ZS's authorization to use funds from the nuclear decommissioning trusts for irradiated fuel management, consistent with the ZNPS updated Irradiated Fuel Management Plan and Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific exemptions,” the Commission may grant exemptions from the regulations in part 50 either upon application by any interested person or on its own initiative, if it determines the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security, and special circumstances are present.
The proposed exemptions would not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) is to provide reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available for decommissioning of power reactors within 60 years of permanent cessation of operations. Based on the site-specific cost estimate and the cash flow analysis, the use of the nuclear decommissioning trusts funds in the proposed manner will not adversely impact ZS's ability to complete the prompt radiological decommissioning of the ZNPS site and ultimately to terminate the ZNPS licenses within 60 years, consistent with the schedule and costs contained in the ZNPS's PSDAR. Therefore, the underlying purpose of the regulation will continue to be met. Since the underlying purpose of the rule will continue to be met, the exemption will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety.
Section 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) could limit the withdrawal of funds from the nuclear decommissioning trusts for activities directly associated with irradiated fuel management until the ZNPS licenses have been terminated. However, the ZNPS licenses cannot be terminated unless the irradiated fuel is managed until such time that the U.S. Department of Energy takes possession of the irradiated fuel. Moreover, the site-specific decommissioning cost analysis demonstrates that adequate funds are reasonably available in the nuclear decommissioning trusts to both manage the irradiated fuel and to complete all decommissioning and decontamination activities, including the activities necessary to proceed down the path toward ultimate license termination. Additionally, the NRC has already acknowledged the accumulation of non-NRC dedicated funds in the nuclear decommissioning trust funds in the safety evaluation report (SER) for the ZNPS license transfer to ZS. Finally, additional assurances have been provided to assure the availability of funds for radiological decontamination and decommissioning, including a $200 million irrevocable letter of credit with the JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. The adequacy of the nuclear decommissioning trusts to cover the cost of activities associated with the different elements of decommissioning (including the irradiated fuel management) is supported by a site-specific decommissioning cost analysis. Based on the above, special circumstances are present.
The NRC staff finds that the use of the nuclear decommissioning trusts as contemplated by the Irradiated Fuel
The NRC staff finds that the proposed exemptions would confirm the availability for use of the nuclear decommissioning trust funds for irradiated fuel management activities in accordance with the ZNPS updated Irradiated Fuel Management Plan required by 10 CFR 50.54(bb) as well as the PSDAR. The NRC staff finds that there is reasonable assurance that adequate funds are available in the nuclear decommissioning trusts to complete all activities associated with license termination and irradiated fuel management. There is no decrease in safety associated with the nuclear decommissioning trusts being used to fund activities associated with irradiated fuel management.
These conclusions are discussed further in the staff's SER. (ADAMS Accession No. ML14030A602).
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, an exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, is consistent with the common defense and security, and that special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants Zion Solutions an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) to authorize ZS to use nuclear decommissioning trust funds to manage irradiated fuel in accordance with the updated Irradiated Fuel Management Plan and PSDAR.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), the Commission has determined the granting of this exemption is categorically excluded, and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared. The exemption involves surety requirements, as described in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(H). Approval of this exemption request involves no significant hazards consideration; no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; no significant construction impact; and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. These exemptions are effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of amendments to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41 issued to Florida Power & Light Company (the licensee) for operation of Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4 (Turkey Point). The proposed amendments would revise the ultimate heat sink (UHS) water temperature limit in the Turkey Point Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the proposed amendments would increase the UHS temperature limit and add a surveillance requirement to monitor the UHS temperature more frequently if the UHS temperature approaches the new limit.
Submit comments by August 13, 2014. Requests for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by September 29, 2014.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Audrey Klett, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0489, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0176 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0176 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is considering issuance of amendments to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41, issued to Florida Power & Light Company, for operation of the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
The proposed amendments would revise the UHS water temperature limit in the Turkey Point TSs. Specifically, the proposed amendments would increase the UHS temperature limit and add a surveillance requirement to monitor the UHS temperature more frequently if the UHS temperature approaches the new limit.
In its letters dated July 10, and July 17, 2014, the licensee stated that the UHS temperature has approached the current TS limit. The licensee stated that the UHS temperature has been trending higher than historical averages in part because of reduced water levels caused by unseasonably dry weather and because of reduced cooling efficiency caused by an algae bloom of concentrations higher than previously observed. The licensee requested a timely review of its application to avoid a dual unit shutdown that could affect grid reliability. Therefore, the licensee requested that the NRC process the license amendment requests under emergency circumstances in accordance with paragraph 50.91(a)(5) of Title 10 of the
Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.
The NRC staff determined that although the licensee requested that the NRC process the license amendment requests under emergency circumstances, there was sufficient time to publish a prior notice and opportunity for a hearing or public comment. Therefore, the NRC staff determined that the provisions of 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) are applicable for processing the licensee's request under exigent circumstances. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6), for amendments to be granted under exigent circumstances, the NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The ultimate heat sink (UHS) is not an accident initiator. An increase in UHS temperature will not increase the probability of occurrence of an accident. The proposed change will allow plant operation with a UHS temperature less than or equal to 104 °F. Maintaining UHS temperature less than or equal to 104 °F ensures that accident mitigation equipment will continue to perform its required function, thereby ensuring the consequences of accidents previously evaluated are not increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not install any new or different equipment or modify equipment in the plant. The proposed change will not alter the operation or function of structures, systems or components. The response of the plant and the operators following a design basis accident is unaffected by this change. The proposed change does not introduce any new failure modes and the design basis heat removal capability of the safety related components is maintained at the increased UHS temperature limit. Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The increase in UHS temperature will not adversely affect design basis accident mitigation equipment performance. It was determined that adequate margin exists in the CCW [component cooling water] system such that post-accident CCW system supply and return temperatures would remain as currently analyzed in the containment integrity analyses such that the peak containment pressure is not altered by the proposed TS change. The technical evaluation confirmed that adequate CCW design margin would remain under the proposed operating conditions to allow a reasonable degree of equipment degradation to occur while demonstrating that the affected safety related components could continuously perform their design function as currently analyzed. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Any comments received within 14 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day notice period if the Commission concludes the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 14-day comment period should circumstances change during the 14-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The hearing request or petition must specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted, with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The hearing request or petition must also include the specific contentions that the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
For each contention, the requestor/petitioner must provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted, as well as a brief explanation of the basis for the contention. Additionally, the requestor/petitioner must demonstrate that the issue raised by each contention is within the scope of the proceeding and is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the granting of a license amendment in response to the application. The hearing request or petition must also include a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion that support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely at the hearing, together with references to those specific sources and documents. The hearing request or petition must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact, including references to specific portions of the application for amendment that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute. If the requestor/petitioner believes that the application for amendment fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the requestor/petitioner must identify each failure and the supporting reasons for the requestor's/petitioner's belief. Each contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who does not satisfy these requirements for at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies, and procedures. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will set the time and place for any prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearings, and the appropriate notices will be provided.
Hearing requests or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated July 10, 2014, as supplemented on July 17, and July 22, 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning an addition of Priority Mail Contract 87 to 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.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2014-36 and CP2014-62 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 87 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than July 31, 2014. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints John P. Klingenberg to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2014-36 and CP2014-62 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, John P. Klingenberg is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than July 31, 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 concerning an addition of Priority Mail Contract 85 to 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.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2014-34 and CP2014-60 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 85 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than July 31, 2014. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2014-34 and CP2014-60 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than July 31, 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 concerning an addition of Priority Mail Contract 84 to 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.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2014-33 and CP2014-59 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 84 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than August 1, 2014. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Curtis Kidd to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2014-33 and CP2014-59 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis Kidd is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than August 1, 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 concerning an addition of Priority Mail Contract 88 to 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.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2014-37 and CP2014-63 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 88 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than July 31, 2014. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints James F. Callow to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2014-37 and CP2014-63 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James F. Callow is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than July 31, 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 concerning an addition of Priority Mail Contract 86 to 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.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2014-35 and CP2014-61 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 86 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than July 31, 2014. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2014-35 and CP2014-61 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth R. Moeller is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than July 31, 2014.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 23, 2014, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 23, 2014, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 23, 2014, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 23, 2014, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 23, 2014, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain disclosure requirements.
Applicants request an order that would permit them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements with Wholly-Owned Subadvisers (as defined below) and non-affiliated subadvisers without shareholder approval and would grant relief from certain disclosure requirements.
Steben Alternative Investment Funds (“Trust”) and Steben & Company, Inc. (“Adviser”).
The application was filed on May 22, 2014.
An order granting the application 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 August 18, 2014, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, 9711 Washingtonian Boulevard, Suite 400, Gaithersburg, MD 20878.
Kay-Mario Vobis, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6728, 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 organized as a Delaware statutory trust and is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. The Trust currently offers one series of shares (the “Series”), Steben Managed Futures Strategy Fund. The Series commenced operations on April 1, 2014. The Adviser, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Maryland, is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”).
2. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser, subject to the approval of the board of trustees of the Trust (“Board”), including a majority of the members of the Board who are not “interested persons,” as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of the Series or the Adviser (“Independent Board Members”), to, without obtaining shareholder approval: (i) Select Subadvisers to manage all or a portion of the assets of a Series and enter into Sub-Advisory Agreements (as defined below) with the Subadvisers,
3. The requested relief will not extend to any subadviser, other than a Wholly-Owned Subadviser, who is an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Subadvised Series or of the Adviser, other than by reason of serving as a subadviser to one or more of the Subadvised Series (“Affiliated Subadviser”).
4. The Adviser serves as the investment adviser to the Series pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the Trust (“Investment Advisory Agreement'). The Investment Advisory Agreement for the Series has been approved by the board of trustees of the Trust (“Board”),
5. Pursuant to the terms of the Investment Advisory Agreement, the Adviser, subject to the supervision of the Board, provides continuous investment advisory services to the Series. The Adviser will periodically review the Series' investment policies and strategies, and based on its need may recommend changes to the investment policies and strategies of the Series for consideration by the Board. For its services to the Series under the Investment Advisory Agreement, the Adviser receives an investment management fee from the Series. The Investment Advisory Agreement provides that the Adviser may, subject to the approval of the Board, including a majority of the Independent Board Members and the initial shareholder of the Subadvised Series, delegate portfolio management responsibilities of all or a portion of the assets of a Subadvised Series to one or more Subadvisers.
6. Pursuant to the Investment Advisory Agreement, the Adviser has overall responsibility for the management and investment of the assets of each Subadvised Series. These responsibilities include, for example, recommending the removal or replacement of Subadvisers, and determining the portion of that Subadvised Series' assets to be managed by any given Subadviser and reallocating those assets as necessary from time to time.
7. The Adviser may enter into investment sub-advisory agreements with various Subadvisers on behalf of the Subadvised Series (“Sub-Advisory Agreements”) to provide investment management services to the Subadvised Series. The terms of each Sub-Advisory Agreement comply fully with the requirements of section 15(a) of the Act and have been approved by the Board, including a majority of the Independent Board Members and the initial shareholder of the Subadvised Series, in accordance with sections 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act and rule 18f-2 thereunder. The Subadvisers, subject to the supervision of the Adviser and oversight of the Board, will determine the securities and other investments to be purchased, sold or entered into by a Subadvised Series and will place orders with brokers or dealers that they select. The Adviser will compensate each Subadviser out of the fee paid to the Adviser under the Investment Advisory Agreement.
8. If the requested order is granted and if new Subadvisers are hired, the Subadvised Series will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new Subadviser pursuant to the following procedures (“Modified Notice and Access Procedures”): (a) Within 90 days after a new Subadviser is hired for any Subadvised Series, that Subadvised Series will send its shareholders either a Multi-manager Notice or a Multi-manager Notice and Multi-manager Information Statement;
9. Applicants also request an order exempting the Subadvised Series from certain disclosure obligations that may require each Subadvised Series to disclose fees paid by the Adviser to each Subadviser. Applicants seek relief to permit each Subadvised Series to disclose (as a dollar amount and a percentage of the Subadvised Series' net assets): (a) The aggregate fees paid to the Adviser and any Wholly-Owned Subadvisers; (b) the aggregate fees paid to Non-Affiliated Subadvisers; and (c) the fee paid to each Affiliated Subadviser (collectively, the “Aggregate Fee Disclosure”). An exemption is requested to permit the Series to include only the Aggregate Fee Disclosure. All other items required by Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X will be disclosed.
1. Section 15(a) of the Act states, in part, that it is unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered investment company “except pursuant to a written contract, which contract, whether with such registered company or with an investment adviser of such registered company, has been approved by the vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of such registered company.” Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class of stock in a series investment company affected by a matter must approve that matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end investment companies. Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A
3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect to a registered investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under the Exchange Act. Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together, require a proxy statement for a shareholder meeting at which the advisory contract will be voted upon to include the “rate of compensation of the investment adviser,” the “aggregate amount of the investment adviser's fee,” a description of the “terms of the contract to be acted upon,” and, if a change in the advisory fee is proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the difference between the two fees.
4. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial statements required to be included as part of a registered investment company's registration statement and shareholder reports filed with the Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X require a registered investment company to include in its financial statement information about the investment advisory fees.
5. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission by order upon application may conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or from any rule thereunder, if 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. Applicants state that their requested relief meets this standard for the reasons discussed below.
6. Applicants assert that the shareholders expect the Adviser, subject to the review and approval of the Board, to select the Subadvisers who are in the best position to achieve the Subadvised Series' investment objective. Applicants assert that, from the perspective of the shareholder, the role of the Subadvisers is substantially equivalent to the role of the individual portfolio managers employed by an investment adviser to a traditional investment company. Applicants believe that permitting the Adviser to perform the duties for which the shareholders of the Subadvised Series are paying the Adviser—the selection, supervision and evaluation of the Subadvisers—without incurring unnecessary delays or expenses is appropriate in the interest of the Subadvised Series' shareholders and will allow such Subadvised Series to operate more efficiently. Applicants state that the Investment Advisory Agreement will continue to be fully subject to section 15(a) of, and rule 18f-2 under, the Act and approved by the Board, including a majority of the Independent Board Members, in the manner required by sections 15(a) and 15(c) of the Act. Applicants are not seeking an exemption with respect to the Investment Advisory Agreement.
7. Applicants assert that disclosure of the individual fees that the Adviser would pay to the Subadvisers of Subadvised Series that operate under the multi-manager structure described in the application would not serve any meaningful purpose. Applicants contend that the primary reasons for requiring disclosure of individual fees paid to Subadvisers are to inform shareholders of expenses to be charged by a particular Subadvised Series and to enable shareholders to compare the fees to those of other comparable investment companies. Applicants believe that the requested relief satisfies these objectives because the advisory fee paid to the Adviser will be fully disclosed and therefore, shareholders will know what the Subadvised Series' fees and expenses are and will be able to compare the advisory fees a Subadvised Series is charged to those of other investment companies. Applicants assert that the requested disclosure relief would benefit shareholders of the Subadvised Series because it would improve the Adviser's ability to negotiate the fees paid to Subadvisers. Applicants state that the Adviser may be able to negotiate rates that are below a Subadviser's “posted” amounts if the Adviser is not required to disclose the Subadvisers' fees to the public. Applicants submit that the relief requested to use Aggregate Fee Disclosure will also encourage Subadvisers to negotiate lower sub-advisory fees with the Adviser if the lower fees are not required to be made public.
8. For the reasons discussed above, applicants submit that the requested relief meets the standards for relief under section 6(c) of the Act. Applicants state that the operation of the Subadvised Series in the manner described in the application must be approved by shareholders of a Subadvised Series before that Subadvised Series may rely on the requested relief. In addition, applicants state that the proposed conditions to the requested relief are designed to address any potential conflicts of interest, including any posed by the use of Wholly-Owned Subadvisers, and provide that shareholders are informed when new Subadvisers are hired. Applicants assert that conditions 6, 7, 10 and 11 are designed to provide the Board with sufficient independence and the resources and information it needs to monitor and address any conflicts of interest with affiliated persons of the Adviser, including Wholly-Owned Subadvisers. Applicants state that, accordingly, they believe the requested relief 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.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Before a Subadvised Series may rely on the order requested in the application, the operation of the Subadvised Series in the manner described in the application, including the hiring of Wholly-Owned Subadvisers, will be, or has been, approved by a majority of the Subadvised Series' outstanding voting securities as defined in the Act, or, in the case of a new Subadvised Series whose public shareholders purchase shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below, by the sole initial shareholder before offering the Subadvised Series' shares to the public.
2. The prospectus for each Subadvised Series will disclose the existence, substance, and effect of any order granted pursuant to the application. Each Subadvised Series will hold itself out to the public as employing the multi-manager structure described in the application. Each prospectus will prominently disclose that the Adviser has the ultimate responsibility, subject to oversight by the Board, to oversee the Subadvisers and recommend their hiring, termination and replacement.
3. The Adviser will provide general management services to a Subadvised Series, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general management and investment of the Subadvised Series' assets. Subject to review and approval of the Board, the
4. A Subadvised Series will not make any Ineligible Subadviser Changes without such agreement, including the compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders of the applicable Subadvised Series.
5. Subadvised Series will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new Subadviser within 90 days after the hiring of the new Subadviser pursuant to the Modified Notice and Access Procedures.
6. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be Independent Board Members, and the selection and nomination of new or additional Independent Board Members will be placed within the discretion of the then-existing Independent Board Members.
7. Independent Legal Counsel, as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under the Act, will be engaged to represent the Independent Board Members. The selection of such counsel will be within the discretion of the then-existing Independent Board Members.
8. The Adviser will provide the Board, no less frequently than quarterly, with information about the profitability of the Adviser on a per Subadvised Series basis. The information will reflect the impact on profitability of the hiring or termination of any Subadviser during the applicable quarter.
9. Whenever a Subadviser is hired or terminated, the Adviser will provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the profitability of the Adviser.
10. Whenever a Subadviser change is proposed for a Subadvised Series with an Affiliated Subadviser or a Wholly-Owned Subadviser, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Board Members, will make a separate finding, reflected in the Board minutes, that such change is in the best interests of the Subadvised Series and its shareholders, and does not involve a conflict of interest from which the Adviser or the Affiliated Subadviser or Wholly-Owned Subadviser derives an inappropriate advantage.
11. No Board member or officer of a Subadvised Series, or partner, director, manager, or officer of the Adviser, will own directly or indirectly (other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled by such person), any interest in a Subadviser, except for (i) ownership of interests in the Adviser or any entity, other than a Wholly-Owned Subadviser, that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the Adviser, or (ii) ownership of less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of a publicly traded company that is either a Subadviser or an entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a Subadviser.
12. Each Subadvised Series will disclose the Aggregate Fee Disclosure in its registration statement.
13. In the event the Commission adopts a rule under the Act providing substantially similar relief to that requested in the application, the requested order will expire on the effective date of that rule.
14. Any new Sub-Advisory Agreement or any amendment to a Subadvised Series' existing Investment Advisory Agreement or Sub-Advisory Agreement that directly or indirectly results in an increase in the aggregate advisory fee rate payable by the Subadvised Series will be submitted to the Subadvised Series' shareholders for approval.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On November 6, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Commission previously approved the listing and trading of shares (“Shares”) of the Fund under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange.
In the Prior Release, the Exchange stated that, consistent with the Trust's Exemptive Order, the Fund would not invest in options contracts, futures contracts, or swap agreements.
The Prior Release stated that the Fund will invest under normal market circumstances at least 65% of its total assets in a diversified portfolio of Fixed Income Instruments of varying maturities.
The Prior Release stated that the Fund's investment would not be used to enhance leverage. In view of the Exchange's proposal to permit the Fund to use derivative instruments, as described below, the Fund's investments in derivative instruments may be used to enhance leverage. However, as noted in the Prior Release, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
The Exchange states that, with respect to the Fund, derivative instruments primarily will include forwards, exchange-traded and over-the-counter (“OTC”) options contracts, exchange-traded futures contracts, options on futures contracts, and swap agreements. Generally, derivatives are financial contracts whose values depend upon, or are derived from, the values of an underlying asset, reference rate, or index, and may relate to stocks, bonds, interest rates, currencies or currency exchange rates, commodities, and related indexes. The Fund may, but is not required to, use derivative instruments for risk management purposes or as part of its investment strategies.
The Exchange represents that the Fund's investments in derivative instruments will be made in accordance with the 1940 Act and consistent with the Fund's investment objective and policies. As described further below, the Fund will typically use derivative instruments as a substitute for taking a position in the underlying asset or as part of a strategy designed to reduce exposure to other risks, such as interest rate or currency risk. The Fund may also use derivative instruments to enhance returns. To limit the potential risk associated with such transactions, the Fund will segregate or “earmark” assets determined to be liquid by PIMCO in accordance with procedures established by the Trust's Board of Trustees and in accordance with the 1940 Act (or, as permitted by applicable regulation, enter into certain offsetting positions) to cover its obligations under derivative instruments. These procedures have been adopted consistent with Section 18 of the 1940 Act and related Commission guidance. In addition, the Fund will
The Exchange states that the Adviser believes derivatives can be an economically attractive substitute for an underlying physical security that the Fund would otherwise purchase. For example, the Fund could purchase Treasury futures contracts instead of physical Treasuries or could sell credit default protection on a corporate bond instead of buying a physical bond. Economic benefits include potentially lower transaction costs or attractive relative valuation of a derivative versus a physical bond (
The Exchange states the Adviser further believes that derivatives can be used as a more liquid means of adjusting portfolio duration as well as targeting specific areas of yield curve exposure, with potentially lower transaction costs than the underlying securities (
The Exchange states that the Fund also can use derivatives to increase or decrease credit exposure. Index credit default swaps (CDX) can be used to gain exposure to a basket of credit risk by “selling protection” against default or other credit events, or to hedge broad market credit risk by “buying protection.” Single name credit default swaps (CDS) can be used to allow the Fund to increase or decrease exposure to specific issuers, saving investor capital through lower trading costs. The Fund can use total return swap contracts to obtain the total return of a reference asset or index in exchange for paying a financing cost. A total return swap may be much more efficient than buying underlying securities of an index, potentially lowering transaction costs.
The Exchange states that the Adviser believes that the use of derivatives will allow the Fund to selectively add diversifying sources of return from selling options. Options purchases and sales can also be used to hedge specific exposures in the portfolio, and can provide access to return streams available to long-term investors such as the persistent difference between implied and realized volatility. Options strategies can generate income or improve execution prices (
In addition to the Fund's use of derivatives in connection with the 65% policy, under the proposal, the Fund would seek to invest in derivative instruments not based on Fixed Income Instruments, consistent with the Fund's investment restrictions relating to exposure to those asset classes.
The Prior Release stated that the Fund may invest in debt securities and instruments that are economically tied to foreign (non-U.S.) countries. The Prior Release stated further that PIMCO generally considers an instrument to be economically tied to a non-U.S. country if the issuer is a foreign government (or any political subdivision, agency, authority or instrumentality of such government), or if the issuer is organized under the laws of a non-U.S. country. In the case of applicable money market instruments, such instruments will be considered economically tied to a non-U.S. country if either the issuer or the guarantor of such money market instrument is organized under the laws of a non-U.S. country.
The Exchange proposes to add to this representation that, with respect to derivative instruments, as proposed to be used, PIMCO generally will consider such instruments to be economically tied to non-U.S. countries if the underlying assets are foreign currencies (or baskets or indexes of such currencies), or instruments or securities that are issued by foreign governments (or any political subdivision, agency, authority, or instrumentality of such governments) or issuers organized under the laws of a non-U.S. country (or if the underlying assets are money market instruments, as applicable, if either the issuer or the guarantor of such money market instruments is organized under the laws of a non-U.S. country).
The Fund's investments, including investments in derivative instruments, are subject to all of the restrictions under the 1940 Act, including restrictions with respect to illiquid securities. The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser, consistent with Commission guidance. 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 securities. Illiquid securities include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets as determined in accordance with Commission staff guidance.
The Exchange states that this proposal would become effective upon (i) the effectiveness of an amendment to the Trust's Registration Statement disclosing the Fund's intended use of derivative instruments and (ii) when this proposed rule change has become operative. The Exchange further states that the Adviser has managed and will continue to manage the Fund in the manner described in the Prior Release, and will not implement the proposed changes until this proposed rule change has become operative. In addition, the Exchange represents that there is no change to the Fund's investment objective and that the Fund will continue to comply with all initial and continued listing requirements under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. Except for the changes noted above, the Exchange represents that all other facts presented and representations made in the Prior Release remain unchanged.
According to the Exchange, the net asset value (“NAV”) of the Fund's Shares is determined by dividing the total value of the Fund's portfolio investments and other assets, less any liabilities, by the total number of Shares outstanding. Fund Shares are valued as of the close of regular trading (normally 4:00 p.m. Eastern time (“E.T.”)) (“NYSE Close”) on each day NYSE Arca is open (“Business Day”). Information that becomes known to the Fund or its agents after the NAV has been calculated on a particular day will not generally be used to retroactively adjust
The Exchange states that for purposes of calculating NAV, portfolio securities and other assets for which market quotes are readily available are valued at market value. Market value is generally determined on the basis of last reported sales prices, or if no sales are reported, based on quotes obtained from a quotation reporting system, established market makers, or pricing services. Domestic and foreign fixed income securities and non-exchange-traded derivatives will normally be valued on the basis of quotes obtained from brokers and dealers or pricing services using data reflecting the earlier closing of the principal markets for those assets. Prices obtained from independent pricing services use information provided by market makers or estimates of market values obtained from yield data relating to investments or securities with similar characteristics. Exchange-traded options, futures, and options on futures will generally be valued at the settlement price determined by the applicable exchange. Derivatives for which market quotes are readily available will be valued at market value. Local closing prices will be used for all instrument valuation purposes. For the Fund's 4:00 p.m. E.T. futures holdings, estimated prices from Reuters will be used if any cumulative futures margin impact is greater than $0.005 to the NAV due to futures movement after the fixed income futures market closes (3:00 p.m. E.T.) and up to the NYSE Close (generally 4:00 p.m. E.T.). Swaps traded on exchanges such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or the Intercontinental Exchange will use the applicable exchange closing price where available.
According to the Exchange, on each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Fund Shares on NYSE Arca, the Fund discloses on its Web site the identities and quantities of the portfolio instruments and other assets held by the Fund that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day.
In order to provide additional information regarding the intra-day value of Shares of the Fund, NYSE Arca or a market data vendor disseminates every 15 seconds through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association or other widely disseminated means an updated Intra-day Indicative Value (“IIV”) for the Fund as calculated by an information provider or market data vendor.
The Exchange states that a third party market data provider is currently calculating the IIV for the Fund. For the purposes of determining the IIV, the third party market data provider's valuation of derivatives is expected to be similar to their valuation of all securities. The third party market data provider may use market quotes if available or may fair value securities against proxies (such as swap or yield curves).
According to the Exchange, with respect to specific derivatives:
• Foreign currency derivatives may be valued intraday using market quotes, or another proxy as determined to be appropriate by the third party market data provider.
• Futures may be valued intraday using the relevant futures exchange data, or another proxy as determined to be appropriate by the third party market data provider.
• Interest rate swaps may be mapped to a swap curve and valued intraday based on changes of the swap curve, or another proxy as determined to be appropriate by the third party market data provider.
• CDX/CDS may be valued using intraday data from market vendors, or based on underlying asset price, or another proxy as determined to be appropriate by the third party market data provider.
• Total return swaps may be valued intraday using the underlying asset price, or another proxy as determined to be appropriate by the third party market data provider.
• Exchange listed options may be valued intraday using the relevant exchange data, or another proxy as determined to be appropriate by the third party market data provider.
• OTC options may be valued intraday through option valuation models (
The Exchange states that the Fund's disclosure of derivative positions in the Disclosed Portfolio will include information that market participants can use to value these positions intraday. On a daily basis, the Fund will disclose on the Fund's Web site the following information regarding each portfolio holding, as applicable to the type of holding: Ticker symbol, CUSIP number or other identifier, if any; a description of the holding (including the type of holding, such as the type of swap); the identity of the security, commodity, index or other asset or instrument underlying the holding, if any; for options, the option strike price; quantity held (as measured by, for example, par value, notional value or number of shares, contracts or units); maturity date, if any; coupon rate, if any; effective date, if any; market value of the holding; and the percentage weighting of the holding in the Fund's portfolio.
The Exchange states that the Adviser believes there will be minimal, if any, impact to the arbitrage mechanism as a result of the use of derivatives. Market makers and participants should be able to value derivatives as long as the positions are disclosed with relevant information. The Exchange states that the Adviser believes that the price at which Shares trade will continue to be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities created by the ability to purchase or redeem creation Shares at their NAV, which should ensure that Shares will not trade at a material discount or premium in relation to their NAV.
The Exchange states that, according to the Adviser, there will not be any significant impacts to the settlement or operational aspects of the Fund's arbitrage mechanism due to the use of derivatives. Because derivatives generally are not eligible for in-kind transfer, they will typically be substituted with a “cash in lieu” amount when the Fund processes purchases or redemptions of creation units in-kind.
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns,
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, exchange traded options, futures, and options on futures with other markets or other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”), and FINRA may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, exchange traded options, futures, and options on futures from such markets or entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, exchange traded options, futures, and options on futures from markets or other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
Additional information regarding the Trust, the Fund, and the Shares, including investment strategies, risks, NAV calculation, creation and redemption procedures, fees, portfolio holdings, disclosure policies, distributions and taxes is included in the Prior Release, Notice, and the Registration Statement, as applicable.
The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and finds that it is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act
The Commission notes that, with respect to its proposed investments in derivatives, the Fund will seek, where possible, to use counterparties whose financial status is such that the risk of default is reduced. The Exchange states that PIMCO's Counterparty Risk Committee will evaluate the creditworthiness of counterparties on an ongoing basis. In addition to information provided by credit agencies, PIMCO credit analysts will evaluate each approved counterparty using various methods of analysis, including company visits, earnings updates, the broker-dealer's reputation, PIMCO's past experience with the broker-dealer, market levels for the counterparty's debt and equity, the counterparty's liquidity, and its share of market participation.
In addition, according to the Exchange, the proposed investments in derivative instruments will be made in accordance with the 1940 Act and consistent with the Fund's investment objective and policies. To further limit the potential risk associated with such transactions, the Fund will segregate or “earmark” assets determined to be liquid by PIMCO in accordance with procedures established by the Trust's Board of Trustees and in accordance with the 1940 Act (or, as permitted by applicable regulation, enter into certain offsetting positions) to cover its obligations under the proposed derivative instruments. The Exchange represents that these procedures have been adopted consistent with Section 18 of the 1940 Act and related Commission guidance. In addition, with respect to the proposed investments in derivative instruments, the Exchange states that appropriate risk disclosures will be provided in the Fund's offering documents, including leveraging risk. The Exchange further represents that the Fund's investments, including the proposed investments in derivative instruments, are subject to all of the restrictions under the 1940 Act, including restrictions with respect to illiquid securities.
Further, the Commission notes that the Fund's disclosure of derivative positions in the Disclosed Portfolio will include information that market participants can use to value these positions intraday. This information will include, as applicable to the type of holding: Ticker symbol, CUSIP number or other identifier, if any; a description of the holding (including the type of holding, such as the type of swap); the identity of the security, commodity, index or other asset or instrument underlying the holding, if any; for options, the option strike price; quantity held (as measured by, for example, par value, notional value or number of shares, contracts or units); maturity date, if any; coupon rate, if any; effective date, if any; market value of the holding; and the percentage weighting of the holding in the Fund's portfolio.
The Exchange states that there will be minimal, if any, impact to the arbitrage mechanism as a result of the use of derivatives. Market makers and participants should be able to value derivatives as long as the positions are disclosed with relevant information. The Exchange notes that the price at which Shares trade will continue to be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities created by the ability to purchase or redeem creation Shares at their NAV, which should ensure that Shares will not trade at a material discount or premium in relation to their NAV. In addition, the Exchange notes that there will not be any significant impacts to the settlement or operational aspects of the Fund's arbitrage mechanism due to the use of derivatives.
In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made additional representations, including:
(1) The Adviser has managed and will continue to manage the Fund in the manner described in the Prior Release.
(2) There is no change to the Fund's investment objective.
(3) The Fund will continue to comply with all initial and continued listing requirements under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.
(4) FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, exchange traded options, futures, and options on futures with other markets or other entities that are members of the ISG, and FINRA may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, exchange traded options, futures, and options on futures from such markets or entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the
(5) The Fund will comply with the representations as prescribed in the No-Action Letter.
(6) Except for the proposed changes, all other facts presented and representations made in the Prior Release remain unchanged.
This approval order is based on the Exchange's representations and description of the Fund, including those set forth above and in the Notice. For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 23, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
CBOE proposes to amend Rules 6.21 and 6.50 that govern the give up of a CTPH by a TPH on Exchange transactions. In order to enter transactions on the Exchange, a TPH must either be a CTPH or have a CTPH agree to accept financial responsibility for the TPH's transactions. Current CBOE Rule 6.21 provides that for each transaction in which a TPH participates, the TPH must give up the name of the CTPH (the “give up”) through which the transaction will be cleared. CBOE Rule 6.50 further provides that every CTPH will be responsible for the clearance of Exchange transactions of each TPH that gives up the CTPH's name pursuant to a letter of authorization, letter of guarantee, or other authorization given by the CTPH to the executing TPH.
CBOE proposes to amend Rule 6.21 to provide that a TPH that is not a market maker may only give up (i) a CTPH that has previously been identified and processed by the Exchange as a “designated give up” for that TPH, or (ii) a guarantor of the TPH. The Exchange proposes to introduce and define the term “designated give up” as a CTPH that a TPH (other than a market maker) identifies in advance to the Exchange, in writing, as a CTPH that the TPH would like the ability to give up on its trades.
The Exchange will notify a CTPH, in writing and as soon as practicable, of each TPH that has identified the CTPH as one of its designated give ups. In its proposal, CBOE noted that it will disregard any instructions from a CTPH not to permit a particular TPH to designate the CTPH as a designated give up and will not perform any subjective evaluation of a TPH's list of proposed designated give ups.
CBOE proposes to define the term “guarantor” for purposes of proposed Rule 6.21 as a CTPH that has issued a letter of guarantee or a letter of authorization for the executing TPH under the rules of the Exchange that are in effect at the time of the execution of the trade.
In its proposal, CBOE states that it will configure its trading systems to only accept orders that identify a designated give up or a guarantor for the TPH.
CBOE proposes to allow a designated give up or a guarantor, in certain circumstances, to not accept a trade for which its name was given up. A designated give up may determine not to accept a trade if it believes in good faith that it has a valid reason not to accept the trade, in which case it may reject the trade by following the procedures set forth in proposed Rule 6.21, which are described below.
A designated give up that rejects a trade on the trade date must notify, in writing, the executing TPH or its designated agent as soon as possible and attempt to resolve the disputed give up.
A guarantor may reject a non-market maker trade for which its name was initially given up only if another CTPH agrees to be the give up and the new CTPH has first notified in writing both the Exchange and the executing TPH of its willingness to accept the trade.
The designated give up or guarantor that changes the give up must notify the Exchange, the parties to the trade, and the new CTPH in writing immediately after making the change.
Recognizing that some firms may take longer to reconcile their trades, CBOE also has proposed to establish procedures for a designated give up or guarantor of a TPH that is not a market maker to reject a trade and change the give up by entering trade records into the Exchange's trading system on the day after the trade date (“T+1”) in order to effect a transfer of the trade to the new give up.
CBOE's proposal also sets forth three situations in which a give up may be changed without Exchange involvement (other than after-the-fact notice to the Exchange).
In its proposal, CBOE notes that a CTPH is financially responsible for all trades for which it is the give up as of the applicable cutoff time (Trade Date Cutoff Time or T+1 Cutoff Time). However, CBOE notes in its proposal that its proposed rule changes do not
Finally, CBOE proposes to eliminate language in Rule 6.50 that addresses financial responsibility of transactions clearing through CTPHs because financial responsibility is now addressed in new paragraph (h) to Rule 6.21.
After careful consideration of the proposal, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange,
In particular, the Commission believes that by providing more detailed requirements relating to the give up process, the proposal is designed to bring greater operational certainty and efficiency to that process. For example, requiring TPHs and CTPHs to use standardized forms to designate give ups, reject a trade and change the give up on a trade, and accept a trade as a new give up should enhance CBOE's ability to efficiently monitor and enforce compliance with its rules relating to the give up process. Use of standardized forms also may make it easier for TPHs and CTPHs to comply with the proposed rules, and should benefit all members by providing a written confirmation to evidence any changes in clearing responsibility for a particular trade. In addition, the process specified in the proposed rule should provide greater transparency and certainty to members about the expectations and requirements attendant to the give up process, and should help facilitate a common process among exchange members in the event that a change to a designated give up becomes necessary.
The Commission believes that the proposal addresses the role of different parties involved in the give up process in a balanced manner and is designed to provide a fair and reasonable methodology for the give up process. For example, the proposed rule change allows executing TPHs to designate any current CBOE CTPH as a designated give up while also obligating the Exchange to notify CTPHs of each TPH that has identified the CTPH as a designated give up. Moreover, the proposal creates procedures for a CTPH to reject a trade where the CTPH has a good faith belief that it has a valid reason not to accept the trade. Although a CTPH with a valid reason may reject a trade, the proposal ensures that there is finality to this process by prohibiting a CTPH that agrees to become the give up on a trade (or a guarantor that is assigned the trade) from subsequently rejecting the trade. In this manner, the proposed rule change is designed to ensure that there will always be a CPTH that will be financially responsible for a trade, which should promote greater operational certainty and facilitate cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in clearing transactions.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal is consistent with the Act, including Section 6(b)(5) thereof, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market, and in general, protect investors and the public interest.
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”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .05 to Rule 1012 (Series of Options Open for Trading) to allow $1 or greater strike price intervals for options on the SPDR® S&P 500® Exchange Traded Fund (“SPY”) and the SPDR® Dow Jones® Industrial Average Exchange Traded Fund (“DIA”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend Commentary .05 to Rule 1012 by modifying the interval setting regime for SPY and DIA options listed on the SPDR S&P 500 Exchange Traded Fund (“ETF”) and the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF, respectively, to allow $1 or greater strike price intervals.
Under current Rule 1012, the interval of strike prices of series of options on ETFs is $1 or greater where the strike price is 200 or less and $5 or greater where the strike price is more than 200.
The strike prices for SPY and DIA options are approaching the 200 price point. By the end of June 2014, for example, SPY was trading at more than $195 per share and DIA was trading at more than $168 per share. As the option strike prices continue to appreciate, investor and member demands to list additional SPY and DIA option series continue to increase. SPY is the most heavily traded and liquid exchange-traded product in the U.S., and SPY options represent 13% of the total option volume in the U.S. and 12% of the options volume on the Exchange. DIA options represent 11% of the options volume on the Exchange and less than 1% of the options volume in the U.S. Moreover, the popularity of DIA and SPY options is reflected in the fact that they have options contracts reflecting monthly, quarterly, and weekly expiration cycles.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add Commentary .05(a)(iv)(C) to state that notwithstanding any other provision regarding the interval of strike prices of series of options on ETFs in Rule 1012, the interval of strike prices on SPY and DIA options will be $1 or greater. By having smaller strike intervals in SPY and DIA, investors will have more efficient hedging and trading opportunities due to the higher $1 interval ascension. The proposed $1 intervals, particularly above a 200 strike price, will result in having at-the-money series based upon the underlying SPY or DIA moving less than 1%, which falls in line with slower price movements of a broad-based index. Furthermore, the proposed $1 intervals will allow currently employed option trading strategies (such as, for example, risk reduction/hedging strategies using SPY weekly options) to remain in play. Considering that $1 intervals already exist below the 200 price point and that SPY and DIA are approaching the 200 level, continuing to maintain the artificial 200 level (above which intervals increase 500%, to $5), will have a negative effect on investing, trading and hedging opportunities and volume. The continued demand for highly liquid options such as SPY and DIA, and the investing, trading, and hedging opportunities they represent, far outweighs any potential negative impact of allowing SPY and DIA options to trade in more finely tailored intervals above a 200 price point.
With the proposal, for example, investors and traders would be able to roll open positions from a lower strike to a higher strike in conjunction with the price movement of the underlying. Under the current rule, where the next higher available series would be $5 away above a 200 strike price, the ability to roll such positions is effectively negated. Thus, to move a position from a 200 strike to a 205 strike under the current rule, an investor would need for the underlying product to move 2.5%, and would not be able to execute a roll up until such a large movement occurred. With the proposed rule change, however, the investor would be in a significantly safer position of being able to roll his open options position from a 200 to a 201 strike price, which is only a 0.5% move for the underlying.
By allowing SPY and DIA options in $1 intervals over a 200 strike price, the proposal will moderately augment the total number of options series available on the Exchange. However, the Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that its members will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal. The Exchange also represents that it does not believe this expansion will cause fragmentation of liquidity. The Exchange's beliefs are supported by the limited nature of the proposal, which applies to two symbols rather than to all ETF products. Moreover, while under the current rule-set there is ample liquidity, it is constricted above 200. This proposal only enhances liquidity at more rational strike intervals necessary to benefit investors as the stock market improves in value.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like the other strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit investors by giving them more flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions by allowing SPY and DIA options to trade in finer $1 intervals.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed rule change would add consistency to the SPY and DIA options markets and allow investors to use SPY and DIA options more easily and effectively. Moreover, the proposed rule change would allow investors and traders, whether big or small, to better trade and hedge positions in SPY and DIA options where the strike price is greater than 200, and ensure that SPY and DIA options investors and traders are not at a disadvantage simply because of the strike price.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,
As noted above, ETF options trade in wider $5 intervals above a 200 strike price, whereby options at or below a 200 strike price trade in $1 intervals. This creates a situation where contracts on the same option class, namely SPY and DIA options, effectively may not be able to execute certain strategies such as, for example, rolling to a higher strike price, simply because of the arbitrary 200 strike price above which options intervals increase by 500%. This proposal remedies the situation by establishing an exception to the current ETF interval regime, for SPY and DIA options only, to allow such options to trade in $1 or greater intervals at all strike prices.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like other strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit investors by giving them increased flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions. Moreover, the proposed rule change is consistent with changes proposed by at least one other exchange.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that its members will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will result in additional investment options and opportunities to achieve the investment and trading objectives of market participants seeking efficient trading and hedging vehicles, to the benefit of investors, market participants, and the marketplace in general. Specifically, the Exchange believes that SPY and DIA option investors and traders will significantly benefit from the availability of finer strike price intervals above a 200 price point.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, 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 May 27, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Nasdaq IM-5900-7 describes the complimentary services offered by Nasdaq to companies listing on the Nasdaq Global and Global Select Markets in connection with an initial public offering, upon emerging from bankruptcy, or in connection with a spin-off or carve-out from another company (“Eligible New Listings”) and to companies that switch their listing from the New York Stock Exchange to the Nasdaq Global or Global Select Markets (“Eligible Switches”). Under the current rule, Eligible Switches with a market capitalization of $500 million or more receive complimentary services for four years from the date of their listing, while all other Eligible Switches and Eligible New Listings receive complimentary services for two years from the date of their listing. In addition, under the current rule, Eligible Switches and Eligible New Listings with a market capitalization of $500 million or more receive additional services that companies with a market capitalization below $500 million do not receive (“Additional Services”).
Nasdaq proposes to modify several aspects of IM-5900-7. First, Nasdaq proposes to increase the threshold for an Eligible Switch or Eligible New Listing to receive Additional Services from $500 million or more in market capitalization to $750 million or more in market capitalization. Nasdaq also proposes to provide three years of services, instead of four, to Eligible Switches with a market capitalization of $750 million or more.
Nasdaq also proposes to remove the use of Directors Desk, an online board portal, as a complimentary service offered under IM-5900-7.
Under the current rule, Nasdaq provides market analytic tools for up to four users to all Eligible New Listings and Eligible Switches, at an approximate retail value of $39,000. Nasdaq proposes to change its offer for market analytic tools for all Eligible News Listings and Eligible Switches from up to four users to up to two users, at an approximate retail value of $30,000.
Nasdaq also proposes to update the approximate retail values set forth in the rule for the individual services offered and the total retail value of all services offered to Eligible New Listings or Eligible Switches to account for changes in prices since the rule was first adopted as well as changes in services as set forth in the proposal. Nasdaq states that the cumulative effect of these changes will reduce the stated annual value of the package from approximately $94,000 to approximately $70,000 for companies with a market capitalization of up to $750 million and from approximately $169,000 to approximately $125,000 for companies with a market capitalization of $750 million or more.
Nasdaq proposes to remove the current language in IM-5900-7 that states that the complimentary period for the services starts from the date of listing and add new paragraph (d) to describe the start of the complimentary period. Under proposed IM-5900-7(d), if an Eligible New Listing or Eligible Switch begins to use a particular service provided under IM-5900-7 within 30 days after the date of listing, the complimentary period for that service will begin on the date of first use. In all other cases, the period for each complimentary service shall commence on the listing date.
Nasdaq proposes to implement the proposed rule change upon approval. However, the proposal provides that any company that applies to list on Nasdaq before July 31, 2014, and that actually lists before September 30, 2014, may elect to receive services under the terms of the rule as in effect prior to the amendment (“Prior Rule”),
The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and finds that it is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
The Commission believes that it is consistent with the Act for the Exchange to raise the market capitalization threshold for companies to qualify for Additional Services from $500 million or more to $750 million or more, and for the Exchange to reduce the time period of complimentary services provided to Eligible Switches with a market capitalization of $750 million or more from four years to three years. Moreover, the Commission believes that it is consistent with the Act for the Exchange to offer varying services to different categories of issuers since larger capitalized companies generally will need and use more services.
Further, Nasdaq notes that reducing the time period from four to three years for free services available to larger Eligible Switches will reduce an existing difference between Eligible Switches and other Eligible New Listings.
The Commission believes that it is consistent with the Act for the Exchange to modify its existing complimentary service offerings by removing Directors Desk, adding interactive webcasts, and reducing the number of users for market analytic tools services. Nasdaq states that it has observed that companies offered the complimentary Directors Desk package may decline to use it, or may only use a few of the available seats, and that a number of companies have expressed interest in interactive webcasts during their discussions with Nasdaq and many purchase this service from NASDAQ OMX Corporate Solutions.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that Nasdaq's proposed changes to its complimentary services offerings, including changes to the eligibility thresholds and the time period of services offered, reflects the current competitive environment for exchange listings among national securities exchanges and is appropriate and consistent with Section 6(b)(8). The Commission notes that all listed companies receive some services from Nasdaq, including Nasdaq Online and the Market Intelligence Desk.
The Commission also believes that it is consistent with the Act for the Exchange to allow the complimentary period for a particular service to begin on the date of first use if a company begins to use the service within 30 days after the date of listing. Nasdaq states that, in its experience, it can take companies a period of time to review and complete necessary contracts and training for the complimentary services offered under IM-5900-7 following their listing, and that allowing this modest 30 day period, if the company needs it, will help to ensure that the company will have the benefit of the full period permitted under the rule to actually use the services, thereby enabling companies to receive the full intended benefit.
Nasdaq proposes to allow a company that applies for listing on Nasdaq before July 31, 2014, and lists before September 30, 2014, to elect to receive services under the terms of the rule as in effect before the amendment. Nasdaq notes that companies near a listing or switch may have relied upon the services described in the previous version of the rule in making their decision to list on Nasdaq.
Finally, the Commission believes that is reasonable, and in fact required by Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act, that Nasdaq amend IM-5900-7 to update the rule text to reflect the actual retail values of the services offered, which have changed since the original adoption of the rule.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 20, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade Shares of the Fund under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 (“Managed Fund Shares”), which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange. The Shares will be offered by AdvisorShares Trust (“Trust”), a statutory trust organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and registered with the Commission as an open-end management investment company.
The Exchange has made the following representations and statements in describing the Fund and its investment strategy, including other portfolio holdings and investment restrictions.
According to the Exchange, the Fund will seek long-term capital appreciation. The Fund will invest substantially all of the Fund's assets in (1) U.S. and foreign common stock of issuers of any capitalization range, and (2) American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”), Global Depositary Receipts (“GDRs”), European Depositary Receipts (“EDRs”) and International Depository Receipts (“IDRs”, and together with ADRs, GDRs, and EDRs, “Depositary Receipts”) that provide investment exposure to global equity markets.
The Exchange states that the Sub-Adviser will manage the Fund's portfolio based on its patented Behavioral Portfolio Management methodology. The Sub-Adviser will start by applying a quantitative behavioral screen that narrows the equity universe to securities held in large part by mutual funds the Sub-Adviser believes to be most consistently pursuing their investment strategy. The Sub-Adviser then will narrow this universe by a high dividend yield criteria and select positions for the portfolio based on the highest combined ranking of the two dimensions.
The Exchange states that, while the Fund under normal market conditions will invest substantially all of the Fund's assets in exchange-traded U.S. and foreign common stocks and Depositary Receipts, the Fund may invest in other securities and financial instruments, as described below.
The Exchange represents that the Fund may purchase equity securities (other than U.S. and foreign common stocks and Depositary Receipts) traded in the U.S. on registered exchanges, which would include preferred stock, rights, warrants, convertible securities,
The Exchange states that on a day-to-day basis, the Fund may hold money market instruments, cash, other cash equivalents, and ETPs that invest in these and other highly liquid instruments. Further, the Exchange represents that the Fund may invest in the securities of other investment companies, including mutual funds and business development companies (“BDCs”),
The Exchange represents that the Fund may invest in variable and floating rate instruments, which involve certain obligations that may carry variable or floating rates of interest, and may involve a conditional or unconditional demand feature.
The Exchange represents that the Fund may seek to invest in corporate debt securities,
The Fund may invest in non-investment-grade debt securities
The Exchange represents that the Fund may invest up to 10% of net assets in asset-backed and commercial mortgaged-backed securities.
The Fund may also invest in inflation-indexed bonds.
The Fund may enter into repurchase agreements with financial institutions, which may be deemed to be loans. The Exchange represents that the Fund will follow certain procedures designed to minimize the risks inherent in such agreements, including effecting repurchase transactions only with large, well-capitalized, and well-established financial institutions whose condition will be continually monitored by the Sub-Adviser. In addition, the Exchange represents that the value of the collateral underlying the repurchase agreements will always be at least equal to the repurchase price, including any accrued interest earned on the repurchase agreement. The Exchange states that the Fund will not invest in repurchase agreements that do not mature within seven days if any such investment, together with any other illiquid assets held by the Fund, would amount to more than 15% of the Fund's net assets. The Fund may also enter into reverse repurchase agreements as part of the Fund's investment strategy.
The Fund will seek to qualify for treatment as a Regulated Investment Company under the Internal Revenue Code.
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 Adviser or Sub-Adviser,
The Fund may not, with respect to 75% of its total assets, purchase securities of any issuer (except securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities or shares of investment companies) if, as a result, more than 5% of its total assets would be invested in the securities of such issuer; or acquire more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer. For purposes of this policy, the issuer of the underlying security will be deemed to be the issuer of any respective depositary receipt.
The Fund may not invest 25% or more of its total assets in the securities of one or more issuers conducting their principal business activities in the same industry or group of industries. This limitation does not apply to investments in securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities, or shares of investment companies. The Fund will
The Exchange represents that the Fund will not invest in options, futures, swaps or other derivatives. It further represents that the Fund's investments will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage.
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,
The Commission further 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. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. Trading in the Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached. Trading in the Shares of the Fund may be halted because of other
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The Exchange represents that the Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made representations, including:
(1) The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.
(2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(3) Trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws, and that these 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 federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange.
(4) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Bulletin will discuss the following: (a) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in creation unit aggregations (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (b) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its Equity Trading Permit Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (c) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated Portfolio Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (d) how information regarding the Portfolio Indicative Value is disseminated; (e) 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 (f) trading information.
(5) For initial and continued listing, the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Exchange Act,
(6) The Fund's investments will be consistent with its respective investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage. While the Fund may invest in inverse ETFs, the Fund will not invest in leveraged or inverse leveraged (
(7) 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 Advisor or Sub-Advisor, in accordance with Commission guidance.
(8) Other than unsponsored ADRs, all U.S. and foreign common stocks and Depositary Receipts in which the Fund will invest will be exchange-traded. Unsponsored ADRs will not exceed 10% of the Fund's net assets.
(9) Not more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund in the aggregate shall consist of equity securities whose principal market is not a member of the ISG or is a market with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
(10) The Fund may invest up to 10% of net assets in asset-backed and commercial mortgaged-backed securities.
(11) The Fund will not invest in options, futures, swaps or other derivatives.
(12) A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations, including those set forth above and in the Notice, and the Exchange's description of the Fund.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of availability of proposed circular and request for comments.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has placed in the docket and on its Web site, proposed guidance, in the form of a circular, to assist recipients in their implementation of the Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Program (Bus Program). The purpose of this proposed circular is to provide recipients of FTA financial assistance with instructions and guidance on program administration and the grant application process. This proposed circular is a result of the new Bus Program enacted through the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). By this notice, FTA invites public comment on the proposed circular.
Comments must be submitted by September 29, 2014. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
You may submit comments identified by the docket number FTA-2014-0018 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For program matters, Sam Snead, Office of Transit Programs, (202) 366-1089 or
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, Pub. L. 112-141), signed into law on July 6, 2012, establishes the Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Formula program (Section 5339 or Bus Program), replacing some of the elements of the Bus and Bus Facilities discretionary program (formerly 49 U.S.C. 5309(b)(3) under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Act of 2005 (SAFETEA-LU)). The Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities Program under SAFETEA-LU provided funds for capital bus and bus facility grants in support of the U.S. Department of Transportation's (U.S. DOT) State of Good Repair, Bus Livability, Veterans Transportation and Community Living, and Clean Fuels initiatives. In addition, SAFETEA-LU allocated funds under this program for Ferry Boat Systems, Fuel Cell Bus, and the Bus Testing program. The new Section 5339 Bus Program, which now includes only capital projects, provides funding to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment as well as construct bus-related facilities.
Therefore, FTA is proposing new circular 5100.1, “Bus and Bus Facilities Program: Guidance and Application Instructions,” in order to provide grantees with guidance for applying for funding under the Bus Program. In addition, the proposed circular addresses the requirements that must be met in the application for Section 5339 program assistance.
In addition to implementing the new Section 5339 program, MAP-21 made several significant changes to Federal transit laws that are applicable across all of FTA's financial assistance programs and reflected in this proposed circular. These changes further several important goals of the U.S. DOT. Most notably, MAP-21 grants FTA significant new authority to oversee and regulate the safety of public transportation systems throughout the United States. MAP-21 also puts new emphasis on restoring and replacing the Nation's aging public transportation infrastructure by establishing a new State of Good Repair formula program and new asset management requirements. Furthermore, it aligns Federal funding with key performance goals and tracks recipients' progress towards these goals. Finally, MAP-21 improves the efficiency of program administration through program consolidation and streamlining. FTA encourages commenters to review and provide comments on this document as well as the other proposed circulars FTA has drafted in response to the MAP-21 changes.
This notice provides a summary of the proposed circular. The circular contains new policies including, but not limited to, policies regarding funding transfer provisions, ineligibility of preventive maintenance and designated recipient
Chapter I of the circular is an introductory chapter that covers general information about FTA and its authorizing legislation, provides a brief history of the Bus Program, and defines terms applicable across all FTA programs.
The proposed circular provides information on the following statutory definitions relevant to Section 5339 which were amended by MAP-21, including “associated transit improvements” (previously “transit enhancements”); “bus rapid transit system”; “fixed guideway,” and “public transportation.” Definitions have also been included in this section for terms that are unclear or currently undefined. Where applicable, we have used the same definitions found in rulemakings or other circulars to ensure consistency.
This section provides an overview of each piece of legislation that has authorized the Section 5339 Bus Program. While Section 5309 Bus Program under SAFETEA-LU was a discretionary program, the Section 5339 funding is allocated to recipients using a statutory formula. In addition, a set amount is appropriated to each State and territory from a National distribution allocation.
Chapter II covers general information about the Bus Program, including program administration, eligibility and oversight.
This chapter begins by providing the statutory authority for the Bus Program, which was codified at 49 U.S.C. Section 5339.
This section identifies the primary goal of the Bus Program which is to assist eligible recipients in financing capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment, and to construct bus-related facilities which will support the continuation and expansion of public transportations services in the United States.
This section begins by providing information on the role of FTA's headquarters and regional offices. Headquarters serves a broader role in administration of the program, including providing guidance, apportioning funds, and conducting national reviews. Regional offices, on the other hand, are responsible for the day-to-day administration of the program, including reviewing and approving grant applications, obligating funds and providing technical assistance.
This section of the proposed circular clarifies that FTA will only apportion Bus Program funds for urbanized areas (UZA) to the State and designated recipients who are responsible for apportioning those funds to eligible projects and applying for funds on behalf of eligible subrecipients within the UZA. This section also clarifies that there are no other eligible direct recipients for the Bus Program under MAP-21. In addition, this section discusses the State's or designated recipient's responsibilities in administering Bus Program funds.
This section provides guidance on who is eligible to receive Section 5339 funds. Eligible recipients are designated recipients and States that operate or allocate funding to fixed-route bus operators. This section also describes the process for allocating funds to subrecipients and discusses pass-through arrangements whereby a designated recipient may pass its Bus Program grant funds through to a subrecipient to carry out the project agreed to in the grant. Unlike supplemental agreements between the designated recipient and FTA, a pass-through arrangement to a subrecipient does not relieve the recipient of its responsibilities to carry out the terms and conditions of the grant agreement.
The section outlines the Congressionally-required oversight that FTA must conduct in relation to the Bus Program. Specifically, to perform this oversight, FTA conducts a triennial review at least once every three years to evaluate recipient performance and compliance with Federal requirements and certifications. The Single Audit Act also requires recipients of Federal awards resulting in expenditures of $750,000 or more to have independent audits conducted annually.
This section includes a discussion on both repealed SAFETEA-LU programs for which funds may still be available and new MAP-21 programs. This section begins by discussing the relationship between programs repealed by MAP-21 and the Bus Program authorized under MAP-21. Repealed programs include the Clean Fuels Grant Program (former Section 5308) and the Bus and Bus Facilities Discretionary Program (former Section 5309(b)(3)). Funds previously authorized for programs that were repealed by MAP-21 may remain available for their originally authorized purposes until the statutory period of availability expires, or until the funds are fully expended, rescinded by Congress, or otherwise reallocated.
This section then discusses the relationship between the Bus Program and the following programs that are either completely new or were significantly modified by MAP-21, including the Urbanized Area Formula Program (5307), Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Program (5309, New and Small Starts, and Core Capacity Improvements), and the State of Good Repair Formula Program (5337).
This chapter provides a more detailed discussion of the apportionments for the Section 5339 Bus Program. The apportionment calculations for Section 5339 include set-asides and formula calculations established by MAP-21. Of the total made available, a percentage identified within the apportionment notice is set aside for National Distribution for each State, Territory and the District of Columbia.
This section describes how FTA obtains the data used for the formula apportionments. For UZAs with less than 200,000 in population, the formula is based on population and population density. For UZAs with populations of 200,000 and more, the formula is based on a combination of bus revenue vehicle miles and bus passenger miles as well as population and population density.
Under MAP-21, Section 5339 funding remains available for obligation three years from the year in which the funds were apportioned. As a result, the funds are available for three years plus the year of apportionment.
MAP-21 allows the Governor of the State to transfer any part of the State's apportionment under the National Distribution to supplement the State's Section 5311 apportionment or any urbanized area's Section 5307 apportionment so long as funds are used for eligible Bus Program activities. No FTA prior approval is required, but the Governor must notify FTA of a transfer for each transaction for record purposes. The transfer provisions regarding formula funds under Section 5336 do not apply to Section 5339 program funds.
The last section in this chapter proposes the types of projects and activities that may be funded under Section 5339. Eligible capital projects include projects to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment, and projects to construct bus-related facilities. More specifically, this includes:
a. The acquisition of buses for fleet and service expansion;
b. bus maintenance and administrative facilities;
c. transfer facilities;
d. bus malls;
e. transportation centers;
f. intermodal terminals;
g. park-and ride stations;
h. acquisition of replacement vehicles;
i. bus rebuilds;
j. passenger amenities such as passenger shelters and bus stop signs;
k. accessory and miscellaneous equipment such as:
l. mobile radio units;
2. supervisory vehicles;
3. fare boxes;
4. computers; and
5. shop and garage equipment.
m. clean fuels projects;
n. introduction of new technology, including Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS);
o. leasing of capital assets;
p. crime prevention and security;
q. innovative financing;
r. interest and debt financing;
s. bicycle facilities;
t. bus rapid transit systems; and
u. joint development.
Under MAP-21, “public art” is no longer an eligible associated transit improvement (formerly “transit enhancement”). However, incorporation of design and artistic considerations into public transportation projects may still be an allowable cost, so long as it is an integral part of the project. For example, an artist may be employed as part of the construction design team, or art can be incorporated into functional elements such as walls, seating, lighting, or railings.
Planning activities are not eligible under the Bus Program. However, costs associated with environmental compliance as part of preliminary engineering (PE) or final design are eligible capital expenses. Preventive maintenance is not an eligible activity under the Bus Program. Mobility Management is also not an eligible expense under the Bus Program.
Consistent with MAP-21, this circular proposes a 20 percent local match requirement for capital assistance. However, MAP-21 expanded the category of funds that can be used as local match. In addition to those sources of local match previously authorized under SAFETEA-LU, local match may also be derived from the following newly authorized sources:
• Amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to a department of agency of the Government (other than DOT), such as Community Development Block Grant Funds administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
• Any amount expended by providers of public transportation by vanpool for the acquisition of rolling stock to be used in the recipient's service area, excluding any amounts the provider may have received in Federal, State or local government assistance for such acquisition. The provider is required to have a binding agreement with the public transportation agency to provide service in the relevant UZA.
Generally, the Federal share is 85 percent for the acquisition of vehicles for purposes of complying with or maintaining compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Federal share for project costs related to acquiring vehicle-related equipment or facilities (including clean-fuel or alternative-fuel vehicle-related equipment or facilities) for purposes of complying or maintaining compliance with the CAA, or for meeting ADA requirements, is 90 percent. The grant recipient may itemize the cost of specific, discrete, vehicle-related equipment being purchased for compliance with the ADA or CAA. The Federal share is 90 percent of the cost for these itemized elements.
This section proposes additional sources of local share that recipients may use as part of local match for a capital project. Certain sources such as revenue bond proceeds need prior FTA approval.
This section of the proposed circular discusses eligibility criteria for capital projects seeking Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) financing, pursuant to section 2002 of MAP-21 (23 U.S.C. 601
The final section in this chapter of the proposed circular discusses the situations in which recipients may request that local share for a project be deferred. Deferred local share must receive FTA approval prior to obligation of the grant.
This chapter proposes guidance on metropolitan and statewide planning requirements. A grant applicant requesting Section 5339 assistance must comply with the planning requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5303, 5304, and 5306. Under SAFETEA-LU, certain eligible projects were required to be developed under a locally developed, coordinated planning process. Under MAP-21, coordinated planning is only a requirement of eligibility under the Section 5310 program. This section includes a reference to the FTA/FHWA revised joint planning regulations at 23 CFR parts 450 and 500 and 49 CFR part 613.
This section of the proposed circular introduces the discussion of TMAs for planning purposes. The proposed circular references the statutory definition of a TMA, which is a UZA with a population of over 200,000 individuals. There is also reference to the joint FTA/FHWA transportation planning regulations at 23 CFR part 40, which include guidelines on determining the boundaries of a Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA).
The next section in this chapter provides the requirements of MAP-21's new broad performance management program which supports the seven national performance goals. The performance management framework attempts to improve project decision-making through performance-based planning and programming and through fostering a transparent and accountable decision-making process for Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), States, and providers of public transportation. This section recommends perusing the FTA/FHWA revised joint planning regulations at 23 CFR parts 450 and 500 and 49 CFR part 613(b), which also address performance-based planning.
This chapter provides guidance on the role of the designated recipient and the MPO in allocating program funds. Both the planning requirements and the statutory provisions of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 specify the roles of the MPO and of the designated recipient. While the MPO develops and adopts the TIP, the designated recipient, which may in some cases also be the MPO, has the primary responsibility to develop the program of projects (POP) for the Section 5339 funds apportioned to its large UZA for inclusion in the TIP.
In those UZAs with more than one designated recipient, FTA recommends that local officials, operating in consultation with the MPO, work together to determine the allocation and sub-allocation of Section 5339 funds.
This section of the circular provides guidance on the POP that recipients must develop as required by 49 U.S.C. 5307(b), which is applicable to Section 5339 recipients. A POP is a list of projects proposed by the designated recipient to be funded from the UZA's Section 5339 apportionment, which includes a description of the projects, in addition to any sub-allocation among public transportation providers, total project costs, local share, and Federal share for each project. As stated above, eligibility for funding under most FTA and FHWA programs requires the MPO to list projects in the approved TIP or STIP, or both. The TIP/STIP public participation and approval processes can serve to satisfy the requirements for public participation under Section 5307.
Section 5339 funds are not available to be transferred between FHWA and FTA for transit or highway projects.
This section of the proposed circular provides guidance on FTA's useful life policy and includes methods by which grantees can determine the useful life for project property. Useful life of rolling stock begins on the date the vehicle is placed in revenue service and continues until it is removed from service. This section provides additional guidance for determining the useful life of buses and vans and for calculating early disposition. Removal of an FTA-funded vehicle from revenue service before the end of its minimum useful life, except for reasons of fire, collision, or natural disaster, leaves the recipient liable to FTA for the Federal share of the vehicle's remaining value.
This section outlines the rolling stock spare ratio policies which are taken into account during FTA review of grant applications which propose to replace, rebuild, or add vehicles to the applicant's fleet. This section also clarifies that vehicles in the contingency fleet do not count in the calculation of spare ratio.
Next, this section provides the requirements that recipients must meet in order to receive funds for the purchase of vehicles, including pre-award and post-delivery review of buses and bus testing. MAP-21 amended the bus testing provisions under 49 U.S.C. 5318 to require that FTA establish a pass/fall testing standard. FTA funds will be available to acquire a new bus model only if it has received a passing score. This requirement will take effect after FTA has issued regulations establishing the standard. Other requirements outlined in this section include Buy America, the Transit Vehicle Manufacturer Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) Program Requirement, and requirements related to the ADA. Recipients must ensure that each transit vehicle meets the accessibility requirements and standards for the vehicle type specified in 49 CFR parts 37 and 38, as applicable.
Finally, this section outlines FTA's policies for replacing FTA-funded vehicles. A vehicle proposed to be replaced must have achieved at least the minimum useful life. Early replacement of a vehicle prior to the end of its minimum useful life requires prior FTA approval. If a vehicle is replaced before it has achieved its minimum useful life, the recipient has the option of returning to FTA an amount equal to the remaining Federal interest in the vehicle or applying the “Like-Kind Exchange” policy and placing an amount equal to the remaining Federal interest in the vehicle into a newly purchased vehicle. Appendix C of this proposed circular contains a “Like-Kind Exchange Example.” In certain circumstances, a recipient may choose to rebuild a vehicle rather than dispose of it.
This section contains information concerning program requirements specific to the construction or acquisition of facilities funded by Section 5339. Similar to vehicles, facilities have a useful life, which is determined by such factors as type of construction, nature of the equipment used, historical usage patterns, and technological developments. Recipients must ensure that transit facilities meet the accessibility standards and requirements specified in 49 CFR parts 37, 38, and 39, as applicable.
This section also discusses shared use of project property which requires prior written FTA approval except when it involves coordinated public transit human services transportation. Shared use projects should be clearly identified and sufficient detail provided to FTA at the time of grant review to determine allocable costs related to non-transit use for construction, maintenance, and operation costs. In addition, FTA requires recipients to include the planning justification in the grant application submitted in the FTA electronic management system. Though planning activities are not an eligible expense under the Bus Program, costs associated with environmental compliance as part of PE or final design are eligible capital expenses.
This section provides guidance on the environmental reviews that recipients must conduct prior to receiving FTA funding. This section recommends that recipients consult with FTA regarding the proper level of environmental review, prior to expending funds for a project.
This section explains the different authorities that allow a recipient to incur costs on a project before grant approval, while still retaining their eligibility for reimbursement after grant approval. The three types of authorities
This chapter outlines the requirements to which Section 5339 recipients must certify compliance, including legal, technical, and financial capacity. Other requirements to which recipients must certify include satisfactory continuing control, maintaining federally-assisted facilities and equipment, compliance with the half-fare requirement during non-peak hours, use of competitive procurements, and Buy America.
Before FTA may award Federal funding, the applicant must provide to FTA all certifications and assurances required by Federal laws and regulations. Near the beginning of each Federal fiscal year, FTA publishes the certifications in the
This section provides a reference to FTA's electronic grants management system which allows electronic grant application submission, review, approval, and management of all grants. The User Guide can be found at FTA's Web site in the “Grants and Financing” section under “Apply for and Manage Grants.”
This section describes the System for Award Management (SAM), which is a free Web site that consolidates Federal procurement systems and the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. On July 30, 2012, the Central Contractor Registration (CCR), FedReg, and the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) were migrated into SAM. Any organization applying for financial assistance from the Federal government must register in SAM and keep its registration current until it submits its final financial report pursuant to the award agreement from FTA or receives its final payment under the project, whichever is later.
Any organization applying for a grant or cooperative agreement from the Federal government must have a DUNS number. This is a nine digit identification number which provides a unique identification for single business entities. Grant applicants that currently do not have a DUNS number can obtain one for free from Dun and Bradstreet (
This section informs subrecipients that they must have a DUNS number in order to receive a subaward from the recipient.
Grantees are required to establish an ECHO Control Number (ECN) before FTA is able to disburse funds to the grantee. Department of Treasury regulations, 31 CFR part 205, govern payment to recipients for financing operations under Federal assistance and other programs.
This section discusses the statutory requirement that a recipient report information about each first tier sub-award over $25,000 by the end of the month following the month the direct recipient makes any sub-award or obligation.
Recipients (including subrecipients and contractors) of Section 5339 program funds are required by statute to submit data to the NTD. Recipients must provide annual financial reports and monthly reports on transit operations, safety and security to the NTD. There is a reduced reporting requirement for small systems.
This chapter begins by providing a general overview of State and Program Management Plans. The State Management Plan (SMP) is a document that describes the State's policies and procedures for administering FTA's program funding. The Program Management Plan (PMP) is a document that describes the designated recipient's policies and procedures for administering FTA's Section 5339 program in a large urbanized area. The requirements for the PMP are the same as those for the SMP with exception that the PMP is developed by designated recipients in large urbanized areas whereas the SMP is developed by the State.
The SMP/PMP is intended to facilitate both recipient management and FTA oversight by documenting the State's and designated recipient's procedures and policies for administering the Section 5339 program.
This section describes the oversight reviews that FTA conducts to examine each designated recipient's management procedures, and the relationship of the procedures to its management plan.
While there is no prescribed format for the SMP/PMP, this circular proposes that the plan should address certain topics and provide specific information for each topic.
Each recipient, whether a State or a designated recipient in a large urbanized area, is required to have an approved SMP/PMP on file with the appropriate FTA Regional Office and to update it regularly to incorporate any changes in program management or new requirements.
All recipients may amend an existing or approved SMP/PMP or create a stand-alone section in order to meet the requirement for these documents.
This chapter provides an overview of the additional FTA-specific and other Federal requirements with which an FTA recipient must comply. This chapter provides a summarized, alphabetical listing of those requirements and provides citations to the actual statutory or regulatory text. If there is a conflict between the summary information provided in this chapter and the statute or regulation, the language of the statute or regulation controls.
This chapter includes information on new requirements and outlines changes to certain existing requirements. More specifically, MAP-21 amended 49 U.S.C. 5329 to provide FTA with the authority to establish a new comprehensive framework to oversee the safety of public transportation throughout the United States. The law requires, among other things, that DOT
Additionally, this section of the proposed circular clarifies the effect that MAP-21 has had on the State Safety Oversight (SSO) Program and the requirements of 49 CFR 659. Section 5330, which authorizes the SSO Program, will be repealed three years from the effective date of the new regulations implementing the new Section 5329 safety requirements. Until then, the current requirements of 49 CFR 659 will continue to apply.
The appendices include instructions for preparing a grant application and a budget, an application checklist, and several forms and representative documents that recipients will need when applying for Section 5339 funds. In addition, the appendices include FTA regional and metropolitan contact information. Last is a list of references, including
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA invites public comments on our intent to request the Office of Management and Budget's approval to revise and renew an information collection currently under OMB Control Number 2137-0596 titled: “National Pipeline Mapping System Program.” The collection currently requires operators to submit geospatial data, attributes, metadata, public contact information and a transmittal letter to the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) program. The proposed revisions will require operators to submit additional information to the NPMS.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on or before September 29, 2014.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0092 through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Amy Nelson, Geospatial Information Systems Manager, Program Development Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, by phone at 202-493-0591 or email at
The NPMS is a geospatial dataset that contains information about PHMSA-regulated gas transmission pipelines, hazardous liquid pipelines, and hazardous liquid low-stress gathering lines. The NPMS also contains data layers for all liquefied natural gas plants and a partial dataset of PHMSA-regulated breakout tanks.
The original standards for the NPMS data collection were drafted in 1998 by a joint government/industry committee comprised of members from PHMSA's predecessor agency the Research and Special Programs Administration, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Gas Association and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. With the passage of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 60132), gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipeline operators are required to submit their geospatial data, attributes, metadata, public contact information, and a transmittal letter to the NPMS program. While the standards reflected the state of geospatial data and positional accuracy at that time, they do not reflect the current state of geospatial data and positional accuracy. PHMSA requires more accurate and complete information about each pipeline, liquefied natural gas plant or breakout tank than the minimal set of attributes it receives with NPMS submissions. Collecting enhanced data will strengthen PHMSA's ability to fulfill its strategic goals to improve public safety, protect the environment and ensure infrastructure is well-maintained. More accurate and complete NPMS data will also help emergency responders and government officials create better, more appropriate emergency response plans.
Specifically, the new data will:
• Aid the industry and all levels of government, from Federal to municipal,
• Permit more powerful and accurate tabular and geospatial analysis, which will strengthen PHMSA's ability to evaluate existing and proposed regulations as well as operator programs and/or procedures.
• Strengthen the effectiveness of PHMSA's risk rankings and evaluations, which are used as a factor in determining pipeline inspection priority and frequency.
• Allow for more effective assistance to emergency responders by providing them with a more reliable, complete dataset of pipelines and facilities.
• Provide better support to PHMSA's inspectors by providing more accurate pipeline locations and additional pipeline-related geospatial data that can be linked to tabular data in PHMSA's inspection database.
PHMSA discussed its NPMS information needs at the joint meeting of the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee, also known as the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, and the Liquid Pipeline Advisory Committee, also known as the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, on August 9, 2013, in Arlington, Virginia. Having discussed with the joint committee some of the challenges involved with gathering positional accuracy data for certain lines, PHMSA devised a proposal that will allow us to gather crucial NPMS data for lines that are in areas of the greatest consequence.
The proposed changes to the NPMS Operator Standards Manual detailed below can be found at:
PHMSA understands that operators, through their annual report submissions, are currently collecting and have the following information and attributes that PHMSA specifically proposes to collect as additional parts of the NPMS submission. Collecting this geospatial information could lead to eliminating duplicate data requests from the annual reports. PHMSA invites comment on how this expanded collection of information could affect the annual report:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PHMSA understands that operators may or may not have the following attributes in their GIS systems and therefore, operators may need to do additional research to compile this information:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The following information is provided for this information collection: (1) Title of the information collection, (2) OMB control number, (3) Current expiration date, (4) Type of request, (5) Abstract of the information collection activity, (6) Description of affected public, (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden, and (8) Frequency of collection. PHMSA requests comments on the following information collection:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
Notice of vacancy on federal advisory committee and solicitation of nominations.
The Surface Transportation Board (Board) hereby gives notice of one vacancy on its Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee (RETAC) for a representative of a coal producer. The Board is soliciting suggestions from the public for a candidate to fill this vacancy.
Suggestions for a candidate for membership on RETAC are due August 22, 2014
Suggestions may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at the E-FILING link on the Board's Web site, at
Michael H. Higgins at 202-245-0284. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.]
The Board exercises broad authority over transportation by rail carriers, including regulation of railroad rates and service (49 U.S.C. 10701-10747, 11101-11124), as well as the construction, acquisition, operation, and abandonment of rail lines (49 U.S.C. 10901-10907), and railroad line sales, consolidations, mergers, and common control arrangements (49 U.S.C. 10902, 11323-11327).
In 2007, the Board established RETAC as a federal advisory committee consisting of a balanced cross-section of energy and rail industry stakeholders to provide independent, candid policy advice to the Board and to foster open, effective communication among the affected interests on issues such as rail performance, capacity constraints, infrastructure planning and development, and effective coordination among suppliers, carriers, and users of energy resources. RETAC operates subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2, 1-16).
RETAC's membership is balanced and representative of interested and affected parties, consisting of not less than: Five representatives from the Class I railroads; three representatives from Class II and III railroads; three
RETAC meets at least twice per year. Meetings are generally held at the Board's headquarters in Washington, DC, but may be held in other locations. Members of RETAC serve without compensation and without reimbursement of travel expenses unless reimbursement of such expenses is authorized in advance by the Board's Managing Director. RETAC members appointed or reappointed after June 18, 2010, are prohibited from serving as federally registered lobbyists during their RETAC term. Further information about RETAC is available on the RETAC page of the Board's Web site at
The Board is soliciting nominations from the public for a candidate to fill one vacancy on RETAC for a representative of a coal producer, for a three-year term ending September 30, 2017.
Nominations for a candidate to fill this vacancy should be submitted in letter form and should include: (1) The name of the candidate; (2) the interest the candidate will represent; (3) a summary of the candidate's experience and qualifications for the position; (4) a representation that the candidate is willing to serve as a member of RETAC; and, (5) a representation that the candidate is not a federally registered lobbyist. Suggestions for a candidate for membership on RETAC should be filed with the Board by August 22, 2014. Please note that submissions will be available to the public at the Board's offices and posted on the Board's Web site under Docket No. EP 670 (Sub-No. 2).
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
49 U.S.C. 721; 49 U.S.C. 11101; 49 U.S.C. 11121.
By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.