Commodity Credit Corporation
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
Rural Utilities Service
Antitrust Division
Engineers Corps
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Indian Health Service
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Surface Transportation Board
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.
Foreign Agricultural Service and Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), USDA.
Final rule.
This final rule removes regulations for the Export Enhancement Program (EEP) and the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) from the Code of Federal Regulations, because the authorities for these programs were repealed by Section 3103 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 110-246, and Section 1423 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79, respectively.
This rule is effective January 14, 2015.
Amy Slusher, Deputy Director, Credit Programs Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Stop 1025, Room 5509, Washington, DC 20250-1025; telephone (202) 720-6211.
The Export Enhancement Program (EEP) was enacted through the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-624). Under the EEP, CCC made available bonuses to enable U.S. exporters to meet prevailing world prices for targeted commodities in targeted destinations. The last year of operation of the EEP was 2001; since that time, U.S. agricultural products have been competitive in world markets and EEP bonuses have not been needed to facilitate sales.
The Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) was enacted through the Food Security Act of 1985 (Pub. L. 99-198). Under the DEIP, CCC made available bonuses to enable U.S. exporters to meet prevailing world prices for certain dairy products in targeted destinations. The last year of operation of the DEIP was 2010; since that time, bonuses have not been needed to facilitate sales.
The primary objective of the EEP and DEIP was to encourage the commercial sale of United States agricultural commodities in world markets at competitive prices. Both programs were subject to annual commodity-specific quantity and budgetary ceilings agreed to by the United States in the World Trade Organization. Congress repealed the authority for the EEP in Section 3103 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, and subsequently repealed the authority for the DEIP in Section 1423 of the Agricultural Act of 2014.
Agricultural commodities, Exports, Dairy products.
Accordingly, under the authority of Sec. 3103, Public Law 110-246, and Sec. 1423, Public Law 113-79, and as discussed in the preamble, CCC amends 7 CFR chapter XIV by removing and reserving part 1494.
Department of State.
Final rule.
The Department of State is issuing a final rule to amend its Privacy Act regulation exempting portions of a system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974. Certain portions of the Risk Analysis and Management (RAM) Records, State-78, system of records contain criminal investigation records, investigatory material for law enforcement purposes, confidential source information and are proposed to be exempted under the Privacy Act.
This final rule is effective January 14, 2015
John Hackett, Acting Director; Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS; Department of State, SA-2; 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8001, or at
The system, Risk Analysis and Management (RAM) Records, designated as State-78, supports the vetting of directors, officers, or other employees of organizations who apply for Department of State contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, or other funding. The information collected from these organizations and individuals is specifically used to conduct screening to ensure that Department funds are not used to provide support to entities or individuals deemed to be a risk to U.S. national security interests. The records may contain criminal investigation records, investigatory material for law enforcement purposes, and confidential source information. (The information collection was approved under OMB Control Number 1405-0204, expiration April 30, 2015.)
The Department of State is issuing this document to amend 22 CFR part 171 to exempt portions of the Risk Analysis and Management Records system of records from the Privacy Act except sections (b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) through (F), (e)(6), (7), (9), (10), and (11), and (i), to the extent to which they meet the criteria of section (j)(2); and from subsections (c)(3);(d); (e)(1); (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I); and (f) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5). Consistent with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(k)), 22 CFR 171.36(b)(1), (2), and (5) provide concise general statements on the reasoning behind taking exemptions (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5), respectively, for the Department systems for which those exemptions are taken. For ease of reference, these statements of reasoning are restated here: STATE-78 is exempted under (k)(1) in order to protect material required to be kept
This action was previously published in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (76 FR 76103) and a Notice of Intent to Create a System of Records (76 FR 76215). One comment was received by a member of the public who voiced a criticism of an analogous risk assessment program run by USAID. The commenter was advised that the Department's risk assessment program operates separately from USAID's program. The commenter had nothing further to add.
Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 22 CFR part 171 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552, 552a; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; Pub. L. 95-521, 92 Stat. 1824, as amended; E.O. 13526, 75 FR 707; E.O. 12600, 52 FR 23781, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 235.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) The systems of records maintained by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (STATE-36), the Office of the Inspector General (STATE-53), the Information Access Program Records system (STATE-35), and the Bureau of Administration (STATE-78) are subject to general exemption under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). All records contained in record system STATE-36, Security Records, and all records contained the Risk Analysis and Management Records system (STATE-78), are exempt from all provisions of the Privacy Act except sections (b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) through (F), (e)(6), (7), (9), (10), and (11), and (i) to the extent to which they meet the criteria of section (j)(2). These exemptions are necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the investigative, judicial, and protective processes. All records contained in STATE-53, records of the Inspector General and Automated Individual Cross-Reference System, are exempt from all of the provisions of the Privacy Act except sections (b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) through (F), (e)(6), (7), (9), (10), and (11), and (i) to the extent to which they meet the criteria of section (j)(2). These exemptions are necessary to ensure the proper functions of the law enforcement activity, to protect confidential sources of information, to fulfill promises of confidentiality, to prevent interference with the enforcement of criminal laws, to avoid the disclosure of investigative techniques, to avoid the endangering of the life and safety of any individual, to avoid premature disclosure of the knowledge of potential criminal activity and the evidentiary bases of possible enforcement actions, and to maintain the integrity of the law enforcement process. All records contained in the Information Access Program Records system (STATE-35) are exempt from all of the provisions of the Privacy Act except sections (b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) through (F), (e)(6), (7), (9), (10), and (11), and (i) to the extent to which they meet the criteria of section (j)(2). These exemptions are necessary to ensure the protection of law enforcement information retrieved from various sources in response to information access requests.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Announcement of early implementation date.
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) is establishing the date for early implementation of the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program regulations that update the standard for determining if a potential parent or student borrower has an adverse credit history for purposes of eligibility for a Direct PLUS Loan (PLUS loan). These regulations also require parents and students who have an adverse credit history, but who are approved for a PLUS loan on the basis that extenuating circumstances exist or by obtaining an endorser for the PLUS loan, to receive loan counseling before receiving the PLUS loan.
The early implementation date for § 685.200(b)(5) and (c), published in the
For information about the Direct PLUS Loan Program or how to apply for a Direct PLUS Loan, call the Federal Student Aid Information Center (FSAIC) at 1-800-4FEDAID (1-800-433-3243). For information regarding the establishment of this early implementation date, contact Sue O'Flaherty, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, 830 First Street NE., Union Center Plaza, Room 64E1, Washington, DC 20202-5345. Telephone: (202) 377-3393 or by email at:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Section 482(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), requires that regulations affecting programs under title IV of the HEA be published in final form by November 1 prior to the start of the award year (July 1) to which they apply. However, that section of the HEA also permits the Secretary to designate any regulation as one that an entity subject to the regulations may choose to
On October 23, 2014, the Department issued final regulations in 34 CFR part 685 for the PLUS Loan Program (79 FR 63317). In the preamble to the final regulations, the Secretary announced the Department's intent to implement the new Direct PLUS Loan Program regulations as soon as possible.
The Secretary is exercising the authority under section 482(c) of the HEA to designate the following amended regulations in 34 CFR part 685 for early implementation beginning on March 29, 2015:
(1) Section 685.200(b)(5); and
(2) Section 685.200(c).
The Secretary will implement the provisions in 34 CFR 685.200(b)(5) and 34 CFR 685.200(c) for student and parent PLUS loan applicants beginning on March 29, 2015, as part of the Department's Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) System new award year release. For all PLUS Loan credit checks conducted on or after March 29, 2015, the Secretary will use the standards established in the final regulations published on October 23, 2014, to determine if an adverse credit history exists. In addition, the Secretary will make PLUS Loan counseling available to borrowers who are determined to have adverse credit histories on or after March 29, 2015, but who qualify for a PLUS Loan due to extenuating circumstances or by obtaining an endorser. Finally, while required only for certain PLUS Loan applicants, the new PLUS Loan counseling will be available for all PLUS Loan borrowers, beginning on March 29, 2015.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially approving and partially disapproving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from Washington, received September 22, 2014, demonstrating that the SIP meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on March 12, 2008, and nitrogen dioxide (NO
This final rule is effective February 13, 2015.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0745. All documents in the docket are listed on the
For information please contact Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256,
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials “Act” or “CAA” mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The words “EPA”, “we”, “us” or “our” mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii) The initials “SIP” mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(iv) The words “Washington” and “State” mean the State of Washington.
On July 18, 1997, the EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone. The EPA revised the ozone NAAQS to provide an 8-hour averaging period which replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). Subsequently, on March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436).
The EPA first set standards for NO
States must submit SIPs meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard. CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to implement, maintain, and enforce the standards, so-called “infrastructure” requirements. To help states meet this statutory requirement, the EPA issued guidance to address infrastructure SIP elements generally for all NAAQS, including the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO
The EPA received one comment on its proposal.
The EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving the September 22, 2014, submittal from Washington demonstrating that the SIP meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone and 2010 NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 16, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of public meeting.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) has made available for public review and comment the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed rule establishing standards for the growing, harvesting, packing, and holding of produce for human consumption. The document is available in Docket No. FDA-2014-N-2244. FDA is also announcing a public meeting to discuss the Draft EIS. The purpose of the public meeting is to inform the public of the findings in the Draft EIS, to provide information about the EIS process (including how to submit comments, data, and other information to the docket), to solicit oral stakeholder and public comments on the Draft EIS, and to provide clarification, as needed, about the contents of the Draft EIS.
See section II, “How to Participate in the Public Meeting” in the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods.
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Submit written submissions in the following ways:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (Pub. L. 111-353), signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011, enables FDA to better protect public health by helping to ensure the safety and security of the food supply. FSMA amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) to establish the foundation of a modernized, prevention-based food safety system. As part of our implementation of FSMA, we published the Proposed Rule: Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption (hereafter referred to as “the 2013 proposed rule”) to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe growing, harvesting, packing, and holding of produce (78 FR 3504, January 16, 2013). On September 29, 2014, FDA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (“the supplemental proposed rule”), amending certain specific provisions of the 2013 proposed rule (79 FR 58434). Taken together, these publications constitute FDA's proposed standards for the growing, harvesting, packing, and holding of produce for human consumption (“the Produce Safety Proposed Rule”).
FDA announced a “Notice of Intent” (NOI) to prepare an EIS to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the Produce Safety Proposed Rule in the
In the Produce Safety Proposed Rule, FDA proposed science-based minimum standards for the safe production and harvesting of produce. As discussed in the Draft EIS (Ref. 1), out of these standards, we identified four provisions that could potentially significantly affect the quality of the human
For standards directed to agricultural water, we considered the following alternatives: (1) As proposed by FDA,
For standards directed to BSAs of animal origin, FDA considered standards for both untreated and treated BSAs. For untreated BSAs of animal origin, the alternatives considered included a range of minimal application intervals (the time between application and harvest) when the BSA is applied in a manner that does not contact covered produce during application and minimizes the potential for contact with covered produce after application. The alternative application intervals evaluated were: (1) 9 months, (2) 0 months, (3) 90 and 120 days, consistent with the National Organic Programs' regulations in 7 CFR 205.203(c)(1), (4) 6 months, and (5) 12 months. For standards directed to treated BSAs, the alternatives considered included a range of application intervals when the BSA is composted in accordance with the requirements proposed in § 112.54(c) and applied in a manner that minimizes the potential for contact with covered produce during and after application. The application intervals evaluated were: (1) As proposed by FDA, 0 days (proposed § 112.56(a)(4)(i)), (2) 45 days, and (3) 90 days.
For standards directed at domesticated animals, we considered alternatives under which, if working animals are used in a growing area where a crop has been planted, measures would be required to prevent the introduction of known or reasonably foreseeable hazards into or onto covered produce with the waiting period between grazing and harvesting varying by alternative. The following alternatives were evaluated: (1) As proposed by FDA, an adequate waiting period between grazing and harvesting for covered produce in any growing area that was grazed to ensure the safety of the harvested crop (proposed § 112.82(a)); (2) a minimum waiting period of 9 months; and (3) a minimum waiting period of 90 days and 120 days before harvest, depending upon whether the edible portion of the crop contacts the soil (applying the timeframes for raw manure set forth in the National Organic Programs' regulations in 7 CFR 205.203(c)(1)). For standards directed to wild animals, we considered alternatives to the proposed requirement that under circumstances when there is a reasonable probability that animal intrusion will contaminate covered produce, the grower would be required to monitor those areas that are used for a covered activity for evidence of animal intrusion: (1) As needed during the growing season based on (i) the grower's covered produce and (ii) the grower's observations and experience; and (2) immediately prior to harvest. The alternatives evaluated were: (1) As proposed by FDA, if animal intrusion occurs—as made evident by observation of significant quantities of animals, animal excreta or crop destruction via grazing—the grower must evaluate whether the covered produce can be harvested in accordance with the requirements of proposed § 112.112 (proposed § 112.83(a) and (b)) and (2) if animal intrusion is reasonably likely to occur, the grower must take measures to exclude animals from fields where covered produce is grown.
The cumulative impacts of the proposed rule were considered using a range of alternatives to the general provision in proposed § 112.4, which would specify the farms that would be covered under the rule based on the farm's annual sales of produce. The alternatives evaluated were to cover those farms that have: (1) As proposed by FDA, an average annual monetary value of produce sold during the previous 3-year period of more than $25,000 (on a rolling basis) (proposed § 112.4); (2) an average annual monetary value of food sold during the previous 3-year period of more than $50,000 (on a rolling basis); (3) an average annual monetary value of food sold during the previous 3-year period of more than $100,000 (on a rolling basis); and (4) an average annual monetary value of covered produce sold during the previous 3-year period of more than $25,000 (on a rolling basis).
FDA has made this Draft EIS available for public review and comment in Docket No. FDA-2014-N-2244 (See Ref. 1).
FDA is holding the public meeting on February 10, 2015, from 1 p.m. until 4 p.m., at Wiley Auditorium, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Bldg., 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, to discuss the Draft EIS for the proposed rule to establish standards for growing, harvesting, packing and holding of produce for human consumption. Due to limited space and time, FDA encourages all persons who wish to attend the meetings to register early and in advance of the meeting. There is no fee to register for the public meeting, and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Onsite registration will be accepted, as space permits, after all preregistered attendees are seated.
Those requesting an opportunity to make an oral presentation during the time allotted for public comment at the meeting are asked to submit a request in advance and to provide information about the specific topic or issue to be addressed. Due to the anticipated high level of interest in presenting public comments and the limited time available, FDA is allocating 4 minutes to each speaker to make an oral presentation. FDA will provide opportunities to submit written comments at the meeting; there will not be an opportunity to display materials such as slide shows, videos, or other media during the meeting. If time permits, individuals or organizations
FDA encourages persons and groups who have similar interests to consolidate their information for presentation by a single representative. After reviewing the presentation requests, FDA will notify each participant before the meeting of the approximate time their presentation is scheduled to begin, and remind them of the presentation format (
While oral presentations from specific individuals and organizations will be necessarily limited due to time constraints during the public meeting, stakeholders may submit electronic or written comments discussing any issues of concern to the administrative record (the docket). All relevant data and documentation should be submitted with the comments to Docket No. FDA-2014-N-2244.
Table 1 provides information on participation in the public meeting:
Information and data submitted voluntarily to FDA during the public meeting will become part of the administrative record and will be accessible to the public at
FR proposed rule document 2015-00205 beginning on pages 1478 in the issue of Monday, January 12, 2015, was never placed on public inspection and was published in error. It should be removed.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Proposed rule.
FHA insures mortgage loans to facilitate the construction, substantial rehabilitation, purchase, and refinancing of multifamily housing under the National Housing Act, and nursing homes, intermediate care facilities, board and care homes, and assisted-living facilities (collectively residential healthcare facilities) under section 232 of the National Housing Act (the Section 232 program). Through this rule, HUD proposes to update HUD fees for multifamily housing and residential healthcare facilities and to update and streamline the Section 232 program regulations that govern the financing of the purchase and installation of fire safety equipment in the insured healthcare facilities, which have not been substantially updated in over 20 years. The proposed changes would give HUD flexibility in raising or lowering fees, and for residential healthcare facilities, streamline the loan application process by eliminating unnecessary requirements, conforming needed requirements to current industry practices, and allowing for HUD to centralize the loan application process.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.
2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule.
Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., weekdays, at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled in advance by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at
For information about: HUD's Multifamily Housing program, contact Dan Sullivan, Deputy Director, Office of Multifamily Housing Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6148, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone number 202-708-1142; HUD's Healthcare program, contact Vance Morris, Office of Healthcare Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone number 202-402-2419. The telephone numbers listed above are not toll-free numbers. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Section 207(d) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1713) authorizes the Secretary, as he determines necessary, to charge and collect fees for the appraisal of a property or project offered for insurance and for the inspection of such property, as long as such fees do not exceed one percent of the amount of the mortgage. Despite the flexibility to set fees given to the Secretary in the statute, relevant HUD fees are currently set by regulation in parts 200 and 232, which does not allow HUD the flexibility necessary to adapt to market changes in a timely manner.
Under section 232 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715w), FHA insures mortgage loans to finance the development of residential healthcare facilities. HUD's regulations for the Section 232 program are codified in 24 CFR part 232. In addition to insuring such mortgage loans, FHA insures, under the Section 232 program, loans to finance the purchase and installation of fire safety equipment in insured healthcare facilities.
The Fire Safety Equipment Loan Act (Pub. L. 93-204, approved December 28, 1973) amended section 232 of the National Housing Act to provide that
In 1974, HUD established its Fire Safety Equipment Loan Program (FSELP) and promulgated regulations in 24 CFR part 232, subpart C, to implement the program (Subpart C regulations). On August 13, 2008, at 73 FR 47075, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published in the
A.
To bring consistency among these fee regulations and to more clearly set forth HUD's fee structure, this rule proposes to revise § 232.505(c), entitled “Application fee” and § 232.510(d) entitled “Commitment fee” to cross-reference to a new § 200.40(d)(2), which would be entitled “Application fee—Section 232 Programs.” Specifically, in § 200.40, HUD proposes to amend § 200.40(d) to designate the existing text in paragraph (d) as paragraph (d)(1), revise newly designated paragraph (d)(1) to allow the Secretary to decrease the application fee, and add a new paragraph (d)(2) that would provide the Secretary with flexibility to set the application fee for insured loans to finance the purchase and installation of fire safety equipment.
B.
C.
D.
Through this rule, HUD also proposes to update and streamline the requirements of other Subpart C regulations. HUD's Subpart C regulations currently provide that fire safety equipment means equipment that is purchased, installed, and maintained in a nursing home, intermediate care facility, assisted living facility, or board and care home and that meets the following standards for the applicable occupancy: (i) The Life Safety Code of the National Fire Protection Association (any edition after 1966); or (ii) A standard mandated by a State, under the provisions of section 1616(e) of the Social Security Act;
A.
For § 232.500(c)(1)(i), this rule proposes to instead require “fire safety equipment” to meet the applicable provisions of the edition of the LSC adopted by the Secretary of HHS. For § 232.500(c)(1)(ii), HUD proposes no change. For § 232.500(c)(1)(iii), HUD
Second, the proposed rule would revise the definition of “equipment cost” in § 232.500(e) to eliminate the involvement of the Secretary of HHS in estimating the reasonable cost of the fire safety equipment installation. As § 232.500(e) currently provides, the FHA Commissioner makes the determination of the reasonableness of cost, while the Secretary of HHS only provides an estimate. HUD has determined that the estimate by the Secretary of HHS is an unnecessary step.
B.
In § 232.505(b), entitled “Filing of Application,” HUD proposes to remove the requirement to submit applications to HUD's local offices. This rule would allow HUD to centralize the application process for insurance of a fire safety loan. HUD believes that the centralization effort will facilitate review of initial applications.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public.
Because this proposed rule merely updates out-of-date practices, streamlines requirements and reduces burdens, it is not determined to be a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. By updating the regulations in this way, FHA is not causing a material effect on the economy, interfering with an action or planned action of another agency, materially changing the budgetary impact of the loan program or the rights or obligations of its recipients, or raising any novel legal or policy issues. The proposed rule simply consolidates fees, allows the Secretary discretion in setting fees consistent with section 207(d) of the National Housing Act, and streamlines the loan application process. Furthermore, the proposed rule comports with the directive of Executive Order 13563. As stated in the preamble,
The information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and approved under OMB control numbers 2502-0605 and 2502-0541. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations in 24 CFR part 50 that implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The Finding is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the Finding by calling the Regulations Division at 202-402-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This rule would not impose any federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of the UMRA.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The proposed rule imposes no requirements on small businesses. In fact, streamlining FSELP requirements should ease an existing burden on those small businesses seeking to accommodate acute care patients and those needing to upgrade or install fire safety equipment to meet HHS requirements.
Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Notwithstanding HUD's determination that this rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding any less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives as described in the preamble to this rule.
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule imposes either substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule would not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for the Mortgage Insurance Nursing Homes, Intermediate Care Facilities, Board and Care Homes and Assisted Living Facilities is 14.129; for Mortgage Insurance-Rental Housing is 14.134; for Mortgage Insurance for the Purchase or Refinancing of Existing Multifamily Housing Projects is 14.155.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal employment opportunity, Fair housing, Home improvement, Housing standards, Lead poisoning, Loan programs—housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping.
Fire prevention, Health facilities, Loan programs-health, Loan programs-housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Nursing homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR parts 200 and 232 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1702-1715z-21; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(d)(1)
(2)
12 U.S.C. 1715b; 1715w; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The edition of The Life Safety Code of the National Fire Protection Association as accepted by the Department of Health and Human Services in 42 CFR 483.70; or
(ii) A standard mandated by a State under the provisions of section 1616(e) of the Social Security Act.
(e)
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(a) Revising paragraphs (b), (c) and (d);
(b) Removing paragraph (e); and
(c) Redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (e) and revising newlydesignated paragraph (e) to read as follows:
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
If the amount of the commitment issued or an increase in loan prior to endorsement is less than the amount applied for, the Commissioner shall refund the excess amount of the application fee submitted by the applicant. If an application is rejected before it is assigned for processing, or in such other instances as the Commissioner may determine, the entire application fee or any portion thereof may be returned to the applicant.
See 24 CFR 200.40 titled “HUD fees” and 200.41 titled “Maximum mortgage fees and charges” for maximum fees and charges applicable to mortgages insured under 24 CFR part 232.
See 24 CFR 200.40 titled “HUD fees” and 200.41 titled “Maximum mortgage fees and charges” for maximum fees and charges applicable to mortgages insured under 24 CFR part 232.
See 24 CFR 200.82 titled “Maturity” for loan payment and amortization period requirements applicable to mortgages insured under 24 CFR part 232.
The principal amount of the loan shall not exceed the lower of the Commissioner's estimate of the cost of the fire safety equipment, including the cost of installation and eligible fees, or the amount supported by ninety percent (90%) of the residual income, which is ninety percent (90%) of the amount of net income remaining after payment of all existing debt service requirements, as determined by the Commissioner. * * *
(c) Certification that fire safety equipment was installed as required by § 232.500(c).
The contract between the mortgagor and the general contractor may be in the form of a lump sum contract, a cost plus contract, or different or alternative forms of contract specified by the Commissioner.
(a)
(a) In order to be eligible as a borrower under this subpart the applicant shall be a profit or non-profit entity, which owns a nursing home or intermediate care facility for which the Secretary of Health and Human Services has determined that the installation of fire safety equipment in such facility is necessary to meet the applicable requirements of the Secretary of Health and Human Services for providers of services under Title XVIII and Title XIX of the Social Security Act and that upon completion of the installation of such equipment the nursing home or intermediate care facility will meet the applicable fire safety requirements of HHS. Until the termination of all obligations of the Commissioner under an insurance contract under this subpart and during such further period of time as the Commissioner shall be the owner, holder, or reinsurer of the loan, the borrower shall be regulated or restricted by the Commissioner as to methods of operation including requirements for maintenance of fire safety equipment.
Prior to Endorsement, applicant must provide certification that the installed
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would amend existing project-based Section 8 regulations related to Management and Occupancy Reviews (MORs) and Vacancy Payments for the following programs: the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) Programs for New Construction, Substantial Rehabilitation, State Housing Agencies, New Construction financed under Section 515 of the Housing Act of 1949, the Loan Management Set-Aside Program, the HAP Program for the Disposition of HUD-Owned Projects, and the Section 202/8 Program. This rule would also amend the existing Section 162 regulations related to Vacancy Payments for the Section 202 Projects. Under this rule, MORs would be conducted in accordance with a schedule published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.
1.
2.
To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule.
For information about management and occupancy reviews contact Lauryn Alleva, Program Administration Office, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-7000; telephone number 202-708-3730 (this is not a toll-free number). For information about vacancy claims, contact Yvette Viviani, Housing Assistance Policy Division, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-7000; telephone number 202-708-3000 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access these numbers through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) authorizes one of HUD's primary programs for providing rental housing assistance (Section 8). The purpose of Section 8 is to provide low-income families with decent, safe, and sanitary rental housing. The Section 8 program includes a project-based program and a tenant-based housing choice program. Under the project-based program, HUD may enter into an annual contributions contract (ACC) with a public housing agency (PHA) through which HUD commits to provide the agency with funds to make housing assistance payments to a project owner. The PHA or state agency, acting as a contract administrator, then enters into a Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract with the owner. Under the HAP contract, the contract administrator agrees to subsidize certain units for a specified period of time for eligible low-income families. In certain circumstances HUD may act as the contract administrator, whereby HUD will directly enter into a HAP contract with an owner.
There are seven project-based Section 8 HAP programs administered by the Office of Multifamily Housing Programs: The HAP program for New Construction (24 CFR part 880) and the HAP program for Substantial Rehabilitation (24 CFR part 881), which provide rental assistance in connection with the development of newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated privately owned rental housing; the HAP Program for State Housing Agencies (24 CFR part 883); the HAP program for New
Section 162 Project Assistance Contracts (PACs) were authorized under the now repealed Section 202(h) of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q). Although the program was repealed, Section 162 PACs are still renewed under the Section 162 program. Section 162 renewals provide funding for projects under the Section 202 Direct Loan Program for the Elderly and targeted persons with disabilities. A PAC is similar to the ACC in the Section 8 projects and the program operates under the same terms as the Section 8 program.
Contract administrators in the Section 8 above-listed programs are responsible for assessing the management and oversight of housing projects and for ensuring that owners comply with the requirements of the HAP contract. In order to assess an owner's compliance with the terms and conditions of its HAP contract, contract administrators conduct management and occupancy reviews (MORs).
Under existing regulations, the frequency of MORs across the seven project-based Section 8 programs administered by the Office of Multifamily Housing is inconsistent. Contract administrators in the HAP New Construction Program, HAP Substantial Rehabilitation Program, and HAP State Housing Agencies Program are required to review a project's operations “at least annually” to determine whether the owner is in compliance with the HAP contract. The regulations for the HAP Program for Section 515 projects, the Loan Management Set-Aside Program, and the Housing Assistance Program for the Disposition of HUD-Owned Projects are less prescriptive and only require that HUD review project operations “at such intervals as it deems necessary” to ensure an owner is in compliance with its HAP contract. Lastly, the Section 202/8 program regulations provide no reference to the frequency of MORs.
Completion of MORs can require Contract Administrators to visit the site and can cause interruption in project operations. The Contract Administrator spends approximately 8 hours of staff time and additional resources to review every project. HUD has found that in recent years projects have been rated “Above Average” or “Superior” 35 percent of the time, “Satisfactory” 57 percent of the time, and “Below Average” or “Unsatisfactory” eight percent of the time. A full or limited review of all projects, including those that consistently receive high marks, puts a strain on HUD and project resources.
Under section 8(c)(4) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, a HAP contract providing project-based rental assistance may contain payments for vacant units. Similarly, a PAC may contain payments for vacant units. A contract administrator may continue to provide assistance under the contract for a dwelling unit that remains vacant after the effective date of the contract or a dwelling unit that becomes vacant only if the vacancy was not the fault of the owner of the dwelling unit, and the agency and the owner take every reasonable action to minimize the likelihood and extent of any such vacancy.
Under current regulations, an owner is entitled to vacancy payments in the amount of 80 percent of the contract rent for a period of no more than 60 days after initial rent up or after an eligible family vacates the unit. These vacancy payments are made as part of an owner's monthly HAP or PAC payment. If the vacancy persists past the 60 days, an owner may also receive additional vacancy payments in an amount equal to the principal and interest payments required to amortize that portion of the debt service attributable to the vacant unit for up to 12 additional months (debt-service vacancy payments). Debt-service vacancy payments are made semi-annually by the contract administer upon request by the owner. In either case, an owner is not entitled to vacancy payments for vacant units to the extent he can collect for the vacancy from other sources (such as security deposits and governmental payments under other programs). Additionally, an owner is only eligible for payments if during the vacancy period for which payment is claimed an owner continues to market the unit in accordance with HUD requirements, takes all feasible actions to fill the vacancy, does not reject an eligible applicant except for good cause acceptable to the contract administrator; and maintains the unit in decent, safe, and sanitary conditions.
HUD has observed that the 60-day period for vacancy payments may be too long; resulting in contract units staying vacant for longer periods and extending the time it takes for eligible families to secure housing.
HUD is proposing to revise the regulations that govern MORs for Section 8 HAP projects to provide consistency across programs and allow HUD the flexibility to set a schedule that is more in-line with the needs of the programs. Because many of the properties that receive assistance under a Section 8 HAP program have consistently received high marks on their MORs, reducing the frequency of MORs for these properties would result in fewer interruptions in project operations and would allow HUD to focus its staff and resources on areas that require greater attention. HUD proposes to amend the project-based Section 8 HAP program regulations to require that MORs be conducted in accordance with a schedule set out by the Secretary as published in the
The first proposed schedule for MORs is published elsewhere in today's
HUD is also proposing to revise the regulations that permit owners of Section 8 HAP projects and Section 162 PAC projects to collect vacancy payments in the amount of 80 percent of the contract rent for the first 60 days of a vacancy. HUD has observed that since vacancy payments are only available once units are ready to be rented, owners typically turn around a unit in 30 days rather than collect a reduced vacancy payment. HUD also wants to incentivize owners, when appropriate, to see that vacant units are rented more expeditiously to eligible individuals and families. The proposed rule would provide that owners could receive vacancy payments in the amount of 80 percent of the contract rent for the first 30 days of a vacancy in place of the current 60 days of a vacancy. This proposed rule would not preempt existing HAP contracts and renewal contracts under the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) (MAHRA) that include a 60 day period for vacancy payments; however, all future renewal contracts under MAHRA will reflect this new requirement. Additionally, the proposed rule would not preempt existing PAC and renewals; however, all future renewals would reflect this requirement. Owners may still apply for additional debt-service vacancy payments for up to 12 months after receiving the first 30 days of vacancy payments at 80 percent of the contract rent.
The proposed change would amend the vacancy payment references to the first 60 days in all seven project-based Section 8 HAP programs administered by the Office of Multifamily Housing and Section 162 program regulations. Specifically, HUD proposes to amend the “vacancy payment” definition to remove the reference to the length of the vacancy period in §§ 880.201, 881.201, 883.302, 891.520, and 891.655. HUD also proposes to remove the reference to “the first 60 days” and replace it with “the first 30 days of a vacancy” and remove any cross-references to the 60 day time period by amending the provisions describing the length of vacancy payment periods in §§ 880.501, 880.611 881.501, 883.602, 884.106, 886.109, 886.309, 891.560, 891.650, 891.705, and 891.790. This proposed rule would also amend the provision regarding the length of the vacancy payment period in § 886.309(d) so that it is consistent with all the other vacancy length payment provisions, and amends § 886.109 to distinguish between vacancies during rent-up, vacancies after rent-up and debt-service vacancy payments. Additionally, HUD proposes to change headings in §§ 880.611, 886.106, 886.309, 891.650(d), and 891.790 for consistency with the other sections.
Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public.
This rule was determined to be a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. More importantly, for HUD program participants, this rule is part of HUD's retrospective review carried out under Executive Order 13563, and designed to reduce burden on well-performing program participants.
Executive Order 12866 emphasizes that “Federal agencies should promulgate only such regulations as are required by law, are necessary to interpret the law or are made necessary by compelling public need, such as material failures of private markets to protect or improve the health and safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being of the American people.” Because the schedule for MORs was established by regulation, HUD (1) can only reduce burden for those programs required to have annual MORs, and (2) bring consistency to the schedule for MORs for the other programs, through regulation. Moreover, HUD has determined that the current MORs schedule is inconsistent and, as currently codified, places a strain on HUD resources and on projects that consistently receive high marks on their MORs. As described in this preamble, HUD has recently determined that projects have been rated as “Above Average”, “Superior”, or “Satisfactory” 92 percent of the time. This fact, and the costs placed on projects to prepare for a MOR and that may result from the interruption in normal operations caused by a MOR, makes reducing this burden an important topic for rulemaking.
Similarly, HUD can only reduce the period of vacancy payments from 60 days to 30 days for the purpose of turning units around more quickly for the next individual or family ready to occupy the unit by regulation. Additionally, while vacancy payments are only available once the unit is ready to be rented, this rule proposes to further reduce any incentive for owners not to rent the unit as quickly as possible. This is consistent with the need to ensure a constant supply of affordable housing. As a result, consistent with Executive Order 13563, this rulemaking is intended to modify, streamline, or repeal burdensome regulations. Thus, the placement of this proposed rule on HUD's Retrospective Review Plan. See page 6 of HUD's updated Retrospective Review Plan at
As discussed in this preamble, the proposed amendments to the MORs regulations would provide consistency to the scheduling of MORs and allow HUD to issue the schedule by publishing it in the
The purpose of a MOR is to verify compliance of the property with the terms of the HAP contract. Scheduling of the MOR begins with a letter sent to the owner generally 30 days, but at least 2 weeks, in advance of the date the MOR is to be undertaken. The on-site review by HUD involves inspection of a sampling of units. The owner is responsible for providing notice to residents that their units may be chosen for inspection. The review also involves a determination of owner compliance with civil rights regulations, including
With respect to vacancy payments, the proposed amendments to the vacancy payments regulations would make units available to eligible families earlier rather than later and further incentivize owners to rent the unit as quickly as possible. As the need for affordable housing remains constant, it is important that owner provide for occupancy of vacant units at the earliest date possible. As noted earlier in this preamble, vacancy payments are only available once units are ready to be rented, meaning that units are decent, safe, and in sanitary condition and are therefore available for occupancy. Vacancy payments are not paid for the days that a unit is being prepared for occupancy. HUD has observed that owners typically turn around a unit in 30 days rather than collect a reduced vacancy payment. Therefore, the amendment largely reflects existing practice among owners. The number of units receiving vacancy payments is small relative to the total number of units utilized in project-based section 8. For those owners that may not move to rent units as quickly as HUD hopes or expects, the reduction of vacancy payments to a 30-day period should incentivize these owners to take actions that will result in available units being promptly rented.
HUD first provided notification of its intention to reduce vacancy payments from 60 days to 30 days in its FY 2013 Congressional Justifications.
Due to data limitations, HUD is unable to determine the aggregate saving resulting from reducing the vacancy payment to 30 days. HUD estimates, however, that taxpayers as a whole will realize a benefit from the shorter payment period and from the incentive for owners created by the rule to take actions that will result in available units being more promptly rented. These changes would result in a savings to the government and represents a transfer from owners to the taxpayer.
The information collection requirements for this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control numbers 2502-0178. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. The overall burden of this collection would be reduced, however, by the reducing the frequency of MORs for properties that perform well. As discussed in HUD's notice proposing the MOR schedule for comment published elsewhere in today's
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the docket file must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector. This proposed rule does not impose a federal mandate on any state, local, or tribal government, or on the private sector, within the meaning of UMRA.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
As noted earlier in this preamble, this proposed rule is one of the regulatory actions being undertaken as part of HUD's Retrospective Review Plan, established in accordance with Executive Order 13563. The primary focus of this rule is to reduce burden, but reduce burden for project owners that manage their projects well in accordance with HUD regulations. In establishing requirements as to how HUD subsidized housing is to be managed and administered, the requirements are not based on whether a project owner is a large entity or small entity. The focus of such requirements is on ensuring that the units that HUD subsidizes are decent, safe and sanitary and are made available to eligible tenants in a nondiscriminatory manner. These are not requirements that HUD can alter on the basis that a project owner is a small entity. However, this rule reduces burden for all project owners, large or small, that manage their properties well in accordance with HUD
The proposal to reduce the period in which HUD will provide vacancy payments from 60 days to 30 days is also a proposal directed to project owners that manage their projects well. As noted earlier in this preamble, the majority of project owners rent vacant units (units ready for occupancy) within 30 days, and therefore the reduction of the vacancy payment period from 60 to 30 days will have minimal impact. As also noted earlier in this preamble, since 2013, HUD has alerted owners of its intention to reduce the vacancy payment period from 60 to 30 days. For owners that may regularly or from time-to-time undertake little effort to rent a vacant unit within 30 days of availability for occupancy, the reduction is intended to serve as motivation to rent the vacant unit within 30 days. The rule would not remove the option in the existing regulations that allow owners to apply for additional debt-service vacancy payments for up to 12 months after receiving the first 30-days of vacancy payments at 80 percent of the contract rent. Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Notwithstanding HUD's determination that this rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding any less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives as described in this preamble.
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either (1) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or (2) preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This final rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments nor preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number applicable to the programs that would be affected by this rule is 14.195.
Annual contributions contract, audit, construction, contract administration, financing, housing assistance, housing assistance payments contract, management, new construction, owner, public housing agency, property standards, rent, section 8, tenants, and units.
Annual contributions contract, audit, contract administration, conversion, housing assistance, housing assistance payments contract, inspections, low-income family, owner, public housing agency, rent, section 8, substantial rehabilitation, tenants, and units.
Annual contributions contract, audit, contract administration, housing finance agencies, housing assistance, housing assistance payments contract, low-income family, owner, rent, section 8, substantial rehabilitation, state agencies, tenants, and units.
Annual contributions contract, audit, contract administration, conversion, housing assistance, housing assistance payments contract, income limit, inspections, low-income family, maintenance, new construction, owner, public housing agency, rent, rural housing, section 8, security deposits, tenants, units, and utility deposits.
Audit, contract administration, housing assistance, housing assistance payments contract, income, inspection, maintenance, marketing, mortgages, owner, rehabilitation, rent, section 8, security deposits, special allocations, tenants, units, and utility deposits.
Capital advances, persons with disabilities, project rental assistance, rent, section 8, supportive housing for persons with disabilities, supportive services, tenants, and units.
Accordingly, for the reasons described in the preamble, HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR part 880, 881, 883, 884, 886, and 891 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), 12701, and 13611-13619.
(c)
(i) Payments to the owner to assist eligible families leasing assisted units, and
(ii) Payments to the owner for vacant assisted units (“vacancy payments”) if the conditions specified in § 880.611 are satisfied.
(2) The housing assistance payments are made monthly by the contract administrator upon proper requisition by the owner, except payments for vacancies under paragraph (d)(3) of this section, which are made semi-annually by the contract administrator upon requisition by the owner.
(d) * * *
(2) A housing assistance payment will be made to the owner for a vacant assisted unit in an amount equal to 80 percent of the contract rent for the first 30 days of a vacancy, subject to the conditions in § 880.611. If the owner collects any tenant rent or other amount for this period which, when added to this vacancy payment, exceeds the contract rent, the excess must be repaid as HUD directs.
(3) For a vacancy that exceeds the vacancy period in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, a housing assistance payment for the vacant unit will be made, subject to the conditions in § 880.611, in an amount equal to the principal and interest payments required to amortize that portion of the debt attributable to the vacant unit for up to 12 additional months.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) The contract administrator will conduct management and occupancy reviews to determine whether the owner is in compliance with the Contract. Such reviews will be conducted in accordance with a schedule set out by the Secretary and published in the
(b) HUD may independently inspect project operations and units at any time.
(c) Equal Opportunity reviews may be conducted by HUD at any time.
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), 12701, and 13611-13619.
(c) * * *
(2) Payments to the owner for vacant assisted units (“vacancy payments”) if the conditions specified in § 880.611 of this chapter are satisfied.
(3) The housing assistance payments are made monthly by the contract administrator upon proper requisition by the owner, except payments under paragraph (d)(3), which are made semi-annually by the contract administrator upon requisition by the owner.
(d) * * *
(2) A housing assistance payment will be made to the owner for a vacant assisted unit in an amount equal to 80 percent of the contract rent for the first 30 days of a vacancy, subject to the conditions in § 880.611 of this chapter. If the owner collects any tenant rent or other amount for this period which, when added to this vacancy payment, exceeds the contract rent, the excess must be repaid as HUD directs.
(3) For a vacancy that exceeds the vacancy period in paragraph (d)(2), a housing assistance payment for the vacant unit will be made, subject to the conditions in § 880.611 of this chapter, in an amount equal to the principal and interest payments required to amortize that portion of the debt attributable to the vacant unit for up to 12 additional months.
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), and 13611-13619.
(b) * * *
(3) The housing assistance payments are made monthly by the State Agency upon proper requisition by the owner, except payments under paragraph (c)(3) of this section, which are made semi-annually by the Agency upon proper requisition by the owner.
(c) * * *
(2) A housing assistance payment will be made to the owner for a vacant assisted unit in an amount equal to 80 percent of the contract rent for the first 30 days of a vacancy, subject to the conditions in § 880.611 of this chapter. If the owner collects any tenant rent or other amount for this period which, when added to this vacancy payment, exceeds the contract rent, the excess must be repaid as the Agency directs in accordance with HUD guidelines.
(3) For a vacancy that exceeds the vacancy period in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, a housing assistance payment for the vacant unit will be made, subject to the conditions in § 880.611 of this chapter, in an amount equal to the principal and interest payments required to amortize that portion of the debt attributable to the vacant unit for up to 12 additional months.
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), and 13611-13619.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) The contract administrator will conduct management and occupancy reviews to determine whether the owner is in compliance with the Contract. Such reviews will be conducted in accordance with a schedule set out by the Secretary and published in the
(b) HUD may independently inspect project operations and units at any time.
(c) Equal Opportunity reviews may be conducted by HUD at any time.
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), and 13611-13619.
(c)
(1) Has submitted a list of units leased as of the effective date and a list of the units not so leased;
(2) 60 days prior to the completion of the rehabilitation or the date the agreement was executed, whichever is later, had notified the PHA of any units which the owner anticipated would be vacant on the anticipated effective date of the contract;
(3) Has taken and continues to take all feasible actions to fill the vacancy including, but not limited to: Contacting applicants on the owner's waiting list, if any, requesting the PHA and other appropriate sources to refer eligible applicants, and advertising the availability of the units in a manner specifically designed to reach low-income families; and
(4) Has not rejected any eligible applicant except for good cause acceptable to HUD.
(d)
(1) Immediately upon learning of the vacancy, has notified HUD of the vacancy or prospective vacancy and the reasons for the vacancy,
(2) Has made and continues to make a good faith effort to fill the vacancy, including but not limited to, contacting applicants on the waiting list, if any, requesting the PHA and other appropriate sources to refer eligible applicants, and advertising the availability of the unit, and
(3) Has not rejected any eligible applicant, except for good cause acceptable to HUD.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(2) Additional payments under this paragraph (g) for any unit shall not be for more than 12 months for any vacancy period, and shall be made only if:
(i) The unit was in decent, safe, and sanitary condition during the vacancy period for which payments are claimed.
(ii) The owner has taken and is continuing to take the actions specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (2) and (3) or paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, as appropriate.
(iii) The owner has demonstrated, in connection with the semiannual claim form and in accordance with the standards prescribed by HUD, that the project is not providing the owner with revenues at least equal to the project costs incurred by the owner, and that the amount of the payments requested is not in excess of that portion of the deficiency which is attributable to the vacant units for the period of the vacancies.
(iv) The owner has submitted, in connection with the semiannual claim, a statement with relevant supporting evidence that there is a reasonable prospect that the project can achieve financial soundness within a reasonable time. The statement shall indicate the causes of the deficiency; the corrective steps that have been and will be taken; and the time by which it is expected that the project revenues will at least equal project costs without the additional payments provided under this paragraph.
(3) HUD may deny any claim for additional payments or suspend or terminate payments if it determines that based on the owner's statement and other evidence, there is not a reasonable prospect that the project can achieve financial soundness within a reasonable time.
(a) The contract administrator will conduct management and occupancy reviews to determine whether the owner is in compliance with the Contract. Such reviews will be conducted in accordance with a schedule set out by the Secretary and published in the
(b) HUD may independently inspect project operations and units at any time.
(c) Equal Opportunity reviews may be conducted by HUD at any time.
(c)
(1) Has submitted a list of units leased as of the effective date and a list of the units not so leased;
(2) Sixty days prior to the completion of the rehabilitation or the date the agreement was executed, whichever is later, had notified the PHA of any units which the owner anticipated would be vacant on the anticipated effective date of the contract;
(3) Has taken and continues to take all feasible actions to fill the vacancy including, but not limited to: Contracting applicants on the Owner's waiting list, if any, requesting the PHA and other appropriate sources to refer eligible applicants, and advertising the availability of the units in a manner specifically designed to reach low-income families; and
(4) Has not rejected any eligible applicant except for good cause acceptable to HUD.
(d)
(1) Immediately upon learning of the vacancy, has notified HUD of the vacancy or prospective vacancy and the reasons for the vacancy; and
(2) Has made and continues to make a good faith effort to fill the vacancy, including but not limited to, contacting applicants on the waiting list, if any, requesting the PHA and other appropriate sources to refer eligible applicants, and advertising the availability of the unit; and
(3) Has not rejected any eligible applicant, except for good cause acceptable to HUD.
(g)
(a) The contract administrator will conduct management and occupancy reviews to determine whether the owner is in compliance with the Contract. Such reviews will be conducted in accordance with a schedule set out by the Secretary and published in the
(b) HUD may independently inspect project operations and units at any time.
(c) Equal Opportunity reviews may be conducted by HUD at any time.
12 U.S.C. 1701q; 42 U.S.C. 1437f, 3535(d), and 8013.
(c) * * *
(2)
(a) The contract administrator will conduct management and occupancy reviews to determine whether the owner is in compliance with the HAP Contract. Such reviews will be conducted in accordance with a schedule set out by the Secretary and published in the
(b) HUD may independently inspect project operations and units at any time.
(c) Equal Opportunity reviews may be conducted by HUD at any time.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(c) * * *
(2)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Forest Service, Agriculture; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would establish regulations for hunting and trapping seasons, harvest limits, and methods and means related to taking of wildlife for subsistence uses during the 2016-17 and 2017-18 regulatory years. The Federal Subsistence Board is on a schedule of completing the process of revising subsistence taking of wildlife regulations in even-numbered years and subsistence taking of fish and shellfish regulations in odd-numbered years; public proposal and review processes take place during the preceding year. The Board also addresses customary and traditional use determinations during the applicable cycle. When final, the resulting rulemaking will replace the existing subsistence wildlife taking regulations. This rule would also amend the general regulations on subsistence taking of fish and wildlife.
•
•
Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attention: Eugene R. Peltola, Jr., Office of Subsistence Management; (907) 786-3888 or
Under Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111-3126), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) jointly implement the Federal Subsistence Management Program. This program provides a rural preference for take of fish and wildlife resources for subsistence uses on Federal public lands and waters in Alaska. The Secretaries published temporary regulations to carry out this program in the
Consistent with subpart B of these regulations, the Secretaries established a Federal Subsistence Board to administer the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The Board comprises:
• A Chair appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture;
• The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
• The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. National Park Service;
• The Alaska State Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management;
• The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs;
• The Alaska Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service; and
• Two public members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture.
Through the Board, these agencies and public members participate in the development of regulations for subparts C and D, which, among other things, set forth program eligibility and specific harvest seasons and limits.
In administering the program, the Secretaries divided Alaska into 10 subsistence resource regions, each of which is represented by a Regional Advisory Council. The Regional Advisory Councils provide a forum for rural residents with personal knowledge of local conditions and resource requirements to have a meaningful role in the subsistence management of fish and wildlife on Federal public lands in Alaska. The Regional Advisory Council members represent varied geographical, cultural, and user interests within each region.
The Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils have a substantial role in reviewing this proposed rule and making recommendations for the final rule. The Federal Subsistence Board, through the Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils, will hold public meetings on this proposed rule at the following locations in Alaska, on the following dates:
During April 2015, the written proposals to change the subpart D, take of wildlife regulations, and subpart C, customary and traditional use determinations, will be compiled and distributed for public review. During the 45-day public comment period, which is presently scheduled to end on May 15, 2015, written public comments will be accepted on the distributed proposals.
The Board, through the Regional Advisory Councils, will hold a second series of public meetings in August through October 2015, to receive comments on specific proposals and to develop recommendations to the Board at the following locations in Alaska, on the following dates:
A notice will be published of specific dates, times, and meeting locations in local and statewide newspapers prior to both series of meetings. Locations and dates may change based on weather or local circumstances. The amount of work on each Regional Advisory Council's agenda determines the length of each Regional Advisory Council meeting.
The Board will discuss and evaluate proposed changes to the subsistence management regulations during a public meeting scheduled to be held in Anchorage, Alaska, in April 2016. The Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Chairs, or their designated representatives, will present their respective Councils' recommendations at the Board meeting. Additional oral testimony may be provided on specific proposals before the Board at that time. At that public meeting, the Board will deliberate and take final action on proposals received that request changes to this proposed rule.
Proposals to the Board to modify the general fish and wildlife regulations, wildlife harvest regulations, and
a. Name, address, and telephone number of the requestor;
b. Each section and/or paragraph designation in this proposed rule for which changes are suggested, if applicable;
c. A description of the regulatory change(s) desired;
d. A statement explaining why each change is necessary;
e. Proposed wording changes; and
f. Any additional information that you believe will help the Board in evaluating the proposed change.
The Board immediately rejects proposals that fail to include the above information, or proposals that are beyond the scope of authorities in § __.24, subpart C (the regulations governing customary and traditional use determinations), and §§ __.25 and __0;.26, subpart D (the general and specific regulations governing the subsistence take of wildlife). If a proposal needs clarification, prior to being distributed for public review, the proponent may be contacted, and the proposal could be revised based on their input. Once distributed for public review, no additional changes may be made as part of the original submission. During the April 2016 meeting, the Board may defer review and action on some proposals to allow time for cooperative planning efforts, or to acquire additional needed information. The Board may elect to defer taking action on any given proposal if the workload of staff, Regional Advisory Councils, or the Board becomes excessive. These deferrals may be based on recommendations by the affected Regional Advisory Council(s) or staff members, or on the basis of the Board's intention to do least harm to the subsistence user and the resource involved. A proponent of a proposal may withdraw the proposal provided it has not been considered, and a recommendation has not been made, by a Regional Advisory Council. The Board may consider and act on alternatives that address the intent of a proposal while differing in approach.
You may submit written comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
The Federal Subsistence Board is committed to providing access to these meetings for all participants. Please direct all requests for sign language interpreting services, closed captioning, or other accommodation needs to Deborah Coble, 907-786-3880,
As expressed in Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” the Federal officials that have been delegated authority by the Secretaries are committed to honoring the unique government-to-government political relationship that exists between the Federal Government and Federally Recognized Indian Tribes (Tribes) as listed in 79 FR 4748 (January 29, 2014). Consultation with Alaska Native corporations is based on Public Law 108-199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Public Law 108-447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267, which provides that: “The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and all Federal agencies shall hereafter consult with Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as Indian tribes under Executive Order No. 13175.”
ANILCA does not provide specific rights to Tribes for the subsistence taking of wildlife, fish, and shellfish. However, because tribal members are affected by subsistence fishing, hunting, and trapping regulations, the Secretaries, through the Board, will provide Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native corporations an opportunity to consult on this rule.
The Board will engage in outreach efforts for this rule, including a notification letter, to ensure that Tribes and Alaska Native corporations are advised of the mechanisms by which they can participate. The Board provides a variety of opportunities for consultation: proposing changes to the existing rule; commenting on proposed changes to the existing rule; engaging in dialogue at the Regional Council meetings; engaging in dialogue at the Board's meetings; and providing input in person, by mail, email, or phone at any time during the rulemaking process. The Board commits to efficiently and adequately providing an opportunity to Tribes and Alaska Native corporations for consultation in regard to subsistence rulemaking.
The Board will consider Tribes' and Alaska Native corporations' information, input, and recommendations, and address their concerns as much as practicable.
Subpart C and D regulations are subject to periodic review and revision. The Federal Subsistence Board currently completes the process of revising subsistence take of wildlife regulations in even-numbered years and fish and shellfish regulations in odd-numbered years; public proposal and review processes take place during the preceding year. The Board also addresses customary and traditional use determinations during the applicable cycle.
Applicable portions of the regulations in the final rules that published June 13, 2012 (77 FR 35482), and June 19, 2014 (79 FR 35232), for the 2012-2014 and 2014-16 subparts C and D regulations constitute the text of the regulations in this proposed rule. The June 2012 rule sets forth the proposed text for § __.25, and the June 2014 rule sets for the proposed text for §§ __.24 and __.26. These regulations will remain in effect until subsequent Board action changes elements as a result of the public review process outlined above in this document.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement that described four alternatives for developing a Federal Subsistence Management Program was distributed for public comment on October 7, 1991. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published on February 28, 1992. The Record of Decision (ROD) on Subsistence Management for Federal Public Lands in Alaska was signed April 6, 1992. The selected alternative in the FEIS (Alternative IV) defined the administrative framework of an annual
A 1997 environmental assessment dealt with the expansion of Federal jurisdiction over fisheries and is available at the office listed under
An ANILCA § 810 analysis was completed as part of the FEIS process on the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The intent of all Federal subsistence regulations is to accord subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on public lands a priority over the taking of fish and wildlife on such lands for other purposes, unless restriction is necessary to conserve healthy fish and wildlife populations. The final § 810 analysis determination appeared in the April 6, 1992, ROD and concluded that the Federal Subsistence Management Program, under Alternative IV with an annual process for setting subsistence regulations, may have some local impacts on subsistence uses, but will not likely restrict subsistence uses significantly.
During the subsequent environmental assessment process for extending fisheries jurisdiction, an evaluation of the effects of this rule was conducted in accordance with § 810. That evaluation also supported the Secretaries' determination that the rule will not reach the “may significantly restrict” threshold that would require notice and hearings under ANILCA § 810(a).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of information that require OMB approval. OMB has reviewed and approved the collections of information associated with the subsistence regulations at 36 CFR 242 and 50 CFR 100, and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0075, which expires February 29, 2016.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has reviewed this rule and has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Title VIII of ANILCA requires the Secretaries to administer a subsistence priority on public lands. The scope of this program is limited by definition to certain public lands. Likewise, these regulations have no potential takings of private property implications as defined by Executive Order 12630.
The Secretaries have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
The Secretaries have determined that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in §§ 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, regarding civil justice reform.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the proposed rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State from exercising subsistence management authority over fish and wildlife resources on Federal lands unless it meets certain requirements.
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Title VIII, does not provide specific rights to tribes for the subsistence taking of wildlife, fish, and shellfish. However, the Board will provide Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native corporations an opportunity to consult on this rule. Consultation with Alaska Native corporations are based on Public Law 108-199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Public Law 108-447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267, which provides that: “The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and all Federal agencies shall hereafter consult with Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as Indian tribes under Executive Order No. 13175.”
The Secretaries, through the Board, will provide a variety of opportunities for consultation: commenting on proposed changes to the existing rule; engaging in dialogue at the Regional Council meetings; engaging in dialogue
This Executive Order requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. However, this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 13211, affecting energy supply, distribution, or use, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Theo Matuskowitz drafted these regulations under the guidance of Eugene R. Peltola, Jr. of the Office of Subsistence Management, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Additional assistance was provided by:
• Daniel Sharp, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management;
• Mary McBurney, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service;
• Dr. Glenn Chen, Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs;
• Trevor T. Fox, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and
• Steve Kessler and Thomas Whitford, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Forest Service.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Subsistence Board proposes to amend 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100 for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 regulatory years. The text of the proposed amendments to 36 CFR 242.24 and 242.26 and 50 CFR 100.24 and 100.26 is the final rule for the 2014-16 regulatory period (79 FR 35232; June 19, 2014). The text of the proposed amendments to 36 CFR 242.25 and 50 CFR 100.25 is the final rule for the 2012-2014 regulatory period (77 FR 35482; June 13, 2012).
Postal Service.
Proposed rule.
The Postal Service proposes to clarify
Submit comments on or before February 13, 2015.
Mail or deliver written comments to the Manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015. You may inspect and photocopy all written comments at USPS Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., 11th Floor North, Washington, DC, by appointment only, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday by calling 202-268-2906 in advance. Email comments, containing the name and address of the commenter, may be sent to:
Lizbeth Dobbins at 202-268-3789, John F. Rosato at 202-268-8597, or Suzanne Newman at 202-695-0550.
To ensure consistency and clarity about the content eligibility of Standard Mail Marketing Parcels, the Postal Service recently published an article in
Standard Mail Marketing Parcels were specifically designed for mailers to send items or samples to potential customers. Our original intent was to build a low cost prospecting vehicle and we built in a few factors to minimize handling costs. One of those factors, the alternative addressing format, was required so that the current resident became the recipient of the mailpiece if the named addressee had moved. This avoided extra delivery and forwarding handling costs. Another was that these pieces needed to be similar in shape and weight if mailed in a single mailing. Other types of size restrictions were also a requirement.
Building upon our original intent, and to keep this product a viable promotional and cost-effective vehicle, we are adding stronger language about content eligibility and address format. All Standard Marketing parcels (regular and nonprofit) must bear an alternate addressing format and cannot be used for “fulfillment purposes” (
We look forward to feedback from the mailing community to help maintain Standard Mail Marketing Parcels as a viable, cost-effective product.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Although we are exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), we invite public comments on the following proposed revisions to
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
All Standard Mail Marketing parcels (regular and nonprofit) must bear an alternate addressing format and cannot be used for “fulfillment purposes” (
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes if our proposal is adopted.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing minor revisions to the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) rule that published in the
Comments must be received on or before February 13, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0304, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
You may be potentially affected by this action if you operate a training program required to be accredited under 40 CFR 745.225, if you are a firm or individual who must be certified to conduct lead-based paint activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.226, or if you are an individual who must be certified to conduct renovation activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.90. This proposed rule applies only in States, territories, and tribal areas that do not have authorized programs pursuant to 40 CFR 745.324. For further information regarding the authorization status of States, territories, and Tribes, contact the National Lead Information Center at 1-800-424-LEAD [5323].
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Building construction (NAICS code 236),
• Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238),
• Real estate (NAICS code 531),
• Child day care services (NAICS code 624410).
• Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110),
• Other technical and trade schools (NAICS code 611519),
• Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building inspection services (NAICS code 541350),
• Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910),
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under
This proposed rule is being issued under the authority of sections 402(a) and 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2682(a) and 2682(c)(3).
EPA is proposing minor revisions to the RRP rule that published in the
The proposed revisions are intended to improve the day-to-day function of these programs by reducing burdens to industry and the EPA and by clarifying language for training providers, while retaining the benefits of the original rules.
EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs and impacts associated with this proposed rule. This analysis is summarized in greater detail in the discussion concerning Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 in Unit V.A. The following is a brief outline of the estimated incremental impacts of this proposed rule.
•
•
•
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.
In 1992, Congress found that low-level lead poisoning was widespread among American children, affecting, at that time, as many as 3,000,000 children under age 6; that the ingestion of household dust containing lead from deteriorating or abraded lead-based paint was the most common cause of lead poisoning in children; and that the health and development of children living in as many as 3,800,000 American homes was endangered by chipping or peeling lead paint, or excessive amounts of lead-contaminated dust in their homes. Congress further determined that the prior Federal response to this threat was insufficient and enacted Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (also known as the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 or Title X) (Ref. 3). Title X established a national goal of eliminating lead-based paint hazards in housing as expeditiously as possible and provided a leadership role for the federal government in building the infrastructure necessary to achieve this goal.
Title X amended TSCA to add a new subchapter entitled “Title IV—Lead Exposure Reduction.” Most of EPA's responsibilities for addressing lead-based paint hazards can be found in this title, with TSCA section 402 being one source of the rulemaking authority to carry out these responsibilities. Section 402(a) of TSCA directs EPA to promulgate regulations covering lead-based paint activities to ensure persons performing these activities are properly trained, that training programs are accredited, and that contractors performing these activities are certified. Regulations promulgated under TSCA section 402(a) must contain standards for performing lead-based paint activities, taking into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety. On August 29, 1996, EPA promulgated final regulations under TSCA section 402(a) that govern lead-based paint inspections, lead hazard screens, risk assessments, and abatements in target housing and child-occupied facilities (also referred to as the LBP Activities regulations) (Ref. 2). The LBP Activities rule, codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, contained an accreditation program for training providers and training, and certification and work practice requirements for lead-based paint inspectors, risk assessors, project designers, abatement supervisors, and abatement workers. Pursuant to TSCA section 404, provisions were made for interested States, territories, and Tribes to apply for and receive authorization to administer their own LBP Activities programs. Requirements applicable to State, territorial, and tribal programs are codified in 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q.
Section 402(c) of TSCA pertains to renovation and remodeling activities. Section 402(c)(3) of TSCA requires EPA to revise the regulations issued under TSCA section 402(a) to apply to renovation or remodeling activities that create lead-based paint hazards. On April 22, 2008, EPA issued a final regulation applying a revised version of
To become certified as a renovator, a person must successfully complete a renovator course accredited by EPA or by a State, territorial, or tribal program authorized by EPA. To gain initial certification, renovators must complete an 8-hour training course. Until October 4, 2011, renovators that successfully completed an EPA, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or EPA/HUD model renovation training course were able to take the 4-hour refresher renovator training in lieu of the 8-hour initial course. Both of these courses require hands-on training. Trainings are taught either in a classroom or via electronic learning (e-learning). In an e-learning course, students take the lecture portion of the course over the Internet and then travel to a training facility to perform the hands-on activities and take the exam. To maintain certification, renovators must complete a renovator refresher course within 5 years of the date the individual completed their previous renovator training. Renovators who received their initial certification before April 22, 2010, however, have until July 1, 2015, to take the refresher training to maintain certification. If the renovator does not complete the course within the required timeframe, the individual must retake the initial 8-hour course to become certified again.
The 8-hour initial training includes hands-on training in testing for lead in paint, methods for minimizing the creation of dust and lead-based paint hazards, interior and exterior containment and cleanup methods, and cleaning verification. Activities covered include the use of EPA-recognized test kits, setting up barriers, covering furniture, ducts, and carpeted floors with plastic, mopping floors, bagging waste, and determining that the work area has been adequately cleaned. Each student performs these activities in front of an instructor who determines if the student is proficient in each one. Students must be deemed proficient in order to pass the class and become certified. The current version of the renovator refresher course includes hands-on training in testing paint for lead and cleaning verification.
At the time the RRP rule became effective it was important to have hands-on training in the refresher course because certain renovators were eligible to take only the refresher course to receive their initial certification (
In addition, by eliminating this requirement, renovators seeking recertification will be able to take the course entirely online without having to travel to a training location to perform the hands-on activities. This change will make it easier for renovators to take the refresher training, especially renovators who live far from a training facility. Renovators will save time and travel costs by taking the course from a single location, possibly their own home. If taking the training is made easier, EPA believes that more renovators will take the refresher training and become recertified. Having more renovators take the refresher training will lead to a higher number of certified renovators, resulting in a workforce better able to perform renovations in a lead-safe manner. For these reasons, EPA believes it is appropriate to eliminate the hands-on training in the renovator refresher course. The Agency requests comment on eliminating the requirement to include hands-on training in the renovator refresher course.
While the Agency believes that the hands-on requirement in the renovator refresher course is no longer necessary, it has not ruled out having hands-on activities that are performed via e-learning instead of in person. This would allow instructors to assess the student's skills without having the student travel to a classroom. EPA requests comment on how the hands-on portion of the refresher course could be performed by the student and assessed by the instructor via e-learning.
Another option for maintaining the hands-on requirement in the renovator refresher course is to modify it to make it less burdensome for trainers and students. For example, the requirement could be changed so the hands-on portion of the course is only required every other time a renovator gets recertified instead of every 5 years. Under this scenario, the renovator would only have to take the hands-on training once every 10 years. The Agency requests comment on possible alternative approaches to conducting the hands-on skills to make the training less burdensome.
The Agency does not intend to eliminate the hands-on activities in the refresher courses for the other lead-based paint program disciplines: Risk assessor, inspector, supervisor, abatement worker and dust sampling technician. The work performed by these disciplines involves highly specialized skills which individuals must learn in training courses accredited by EPA or authorized States, territories, and Tribes. For example, a significant portion of an abatement worker's training is focused on abatement techniques and selection of the appropriate course of action for a variety of hazards. Renovators, on the other hand, do not seek to permanently eliminate lead hazards; instead they perform maintenance and improvement tasks as directed by the consumer. Thus, the goal of EPA's renovator training and certification program is not to update the methodology a renovator uses to accomplish these tasks (
Currently, training providers are required to submit both a pre-training and post-training notification for each
In the absence of more particular information regarding the number of renovators that may take an online class to complete the required refresher training, EPA assumes that 98% of renovators will take the online training if the hands-on requirement is removed, based on the significant cost savings that would result from reduced tuition costs and by avoiding the time and associated expenses needed to travel to a training site. EPA requests comment on this assumption. EPA also requests comment and supporting information on the savings that would accrue to renovators if EPA removes the hands-on training requirement for renovator refresher courses; whether the tuition is likely to differ for online and in-person refresher training; and how the costs training providers would incur to offer online refresher training courses compare to the costs of offering courses in person.
The Agency is considering a further modification to the notification requirements regarding online notifications. For years, training providers have had the option of submitting notifications electronically via EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX); 63% of training providers opted to do so in the past year. The CDX system is designed to streamline the notification process for training providers and EPA alike, and to perform basic validations of electronic submissions that reduce common errors in notifications otherwise submitted on paper. Depending on how the notification requirements are modified, training providers may find it more efficient and less burdensome to submit notifications to EPA electronically if the hands-on refresher training requirement was eliminated. Such a change could result in an increased rate of electronic reporting of training notifications to EPA. To reduce the burden on the Agency and save taxpayer dollars, EPA will consider requiring training providers that teach the online refresher renovator course to submit their notifications for that course online. The Agency requests comment on whether it should require training providers to submit notifications online for the online refresher course.
The Agency is concerned that, by the time a final rule is published, many renovators will have already taken the refresher training that includes the hands-on learning and will have missed out on the burden savings that this proposed rule would provide. In light of this, EPA is considering extending the certifications for a portion of renovators so they would be able to realize the benefits of this proposed rule. For example, the Agency could extend for 6 months the renovator certifications that expire by July 1, 2015. EPA requests comments on whether it should extend the certifications of renovators so they can take advantage of the burden savings of this proposed rule.
On June 9, 1999, 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, was amended to include a fee schedule for training programs seeking EPA accreditation and for individuals and firms seeking EPA certification (Ref. 4). These fees were established as directed by TSCA section 402(a)(3), which requires EPA to recover the cost of administering and enforcing the lead-based paint activities requirements in States without authorized programs. The fee schedule created a multi-jurisdiction registration fee which applies to individuals, firms and training programs that provide training or perform lead-based paint activities in more than one State administered by the EPA program. This fee is applied per discipline for each additional EPA-administered State in which the applicant seeks certification/recertification or accreditation/reaccreditation. An EPA-administered jurisdiction is either an individual State without an authorized program or all Tribes without authorized programs in a given EPA Region.
The multi-state jurisdiction fee of $35 was based on the estimated burdens required for Agency clerical, technical, and managerial staff to perform tasks associated with adding jurisdictions to a certification or accreditation. Tasks include entering the information into a database, approving or disapproving the application and generating and mailing a certificate to the applicant. After years of implementing the LBP Activities program, the Agency believes that separate certifications for each EPA-administered State jurisdiction are not necessary. In particular, EPA does not believe it is necessary for the Agency to certify or accredit the same applicant multiple times; certification in one EPA-administered State jurisdiction should be sufficient to perform work in any other EPA-administered States. For instance, EPA did not include separate certifications for each EPA-administered State in the RRP rule and found that it did not adversely impact the program. In addition, only requiring one certification for all EPA-administered State jurisdictions helps to streamline the certification and accreditation process. Accordingly, the Agency is proposing to eliminate the requirement for separate certifications in each EPA-administered State jurisdiction in the LBP Activities program. If jurisdictions are eliminated, regulated entities will no longer have to send an application and fees to EPA for the purpose of adding additional EPA-administered State jurisdictions to their certification or accreditation. Once a regulated entity applies and is approved in the Lead-based Paint Activities program, they will be able to work in any EPA-administered State. EPA requests comment on whether it should eliminate this requirement from the Lead-based Paint Activities regulations.
Eliminating the fee for adding an EPA-administered State jurisdiction will not cause the other fees under the LBP Activities regulations to increase. As stated earlier, TSCA requires EPA to recover the cost of administering and enforcing the lead-based paint activities requirements. Eliminating the requirement to apply for additional jurisdictions also eliminates the Agency's costs for processing those applications and its need to recover the fee. Thus, eliminating the $35 fee will not require the Agency to adjust the other fees it collects under the LBP Activities rule.
EPA is clarifying the application regulations for accredited training providers under the RRP rule (Ref. 1)
The regulatory text of the final RRP rule in 2008 (Ref. 1) inadvertently omitted a requirement for accredited providers of renovation training to provide notification to EPA after each training course the provider delivers. The provision was designed to supply important information regarding certified renovators for EPA's compliance monitoring efforts. In 2009, EPA issued a rule (Ref. 5) to correct this omission by amending 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) to require post-course notifications from accredited providers of renovator or dust sampling technician training. The 2009 rule also included conforming changes to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14)(iii) to include the correct name of the sample post-course notification form and to make it clear that all methods of post-course notification are available to both renovation training providers and lead-based paint activities training providers. As amended, 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) required renovation training providers to notify EPA no later than 10 business days following course completion. Although EPA identified this requirement in its cost estimates in 2008, the regulatory provision was subsequently overwritten by another rulemaking. Specifically, in a 2011 rule (Ref. 6), the regulatory language inadvertently removed the regulatory text that was added to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14)(i) by the 2009 rule. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to add the same language back to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14)(i) that was included in the 2009 rule. EPA requests comment on adding this language back to the notification requirements. Since EPA has continued to account for the costs and paperwork burden associated with this notification provision, this proposed correction does not increase the estimated costs and burdens for the RRP program.
EPA is proposing to find under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that good cause exists to dispense with the 30-day delay in the effective date of the final rule that EPA intends to promulgate based upon this proposed rule. As stated earlier in this preamble, removing the hands-on requirement will make it easier for renovators to take the refresher training, especially renovators who live far from a training facility. If taking the training is made easier, EPA believes that removing the hands-on requirement will lead to more renovators taking the training and becoming recertified. Consequently, delaying the effective date may result in fewer renovators taking the training and becoming recertified. For this reason, the Agency believes it is in the public interest to remove the requirement as soon as possible. EPA also believes that such action would relieve a restriction in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). EPA therefore proposes to issue a final rule making this change effective upon publication in the
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under
This proposed rule has been designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations are documented in the docket.
EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential cost savings associated with this rulemaking. This analysis is contained in the Economic Analysis for the Lead-Based Paint Program Minor Amendments Proposed Rule (Ref. 7) and is briefly summarized here.
In a typical year, individuals, firms, and training providers apply to perform lead-based paint activities or provide training in a total of 431 additional EPA-administered jurisdictions. Removing the $35 multi-jurisdiction fee will result in total estimated cost savings of approximately $15,000 per year to these entities.
Removing the hands-on training requirement for renovator refresher training is estimated to reduce the tuition by an average of $37. Removing the hands-on requirement also makes online renovator refresher training more attractive to training providers and renovators. If renovators become recertified by taking an e-learning refresher course they are estimated to save an additional $165 by avoiding the time and associated expenses needed to travel to a training site. Renovator training and certification (which is valid
The proposed rule includes a correction to the training notification requirements to add back regulatory text on post-training notifications that was inadvertently overwritten in a 2011 rule (although most training providers are continuing to provide post-training notifications to EPA in a timely manner). EPA has already accounted for the burden and cost of requiring accredited providers of renovation training to provide notification to EPA after each training course the provider delivers. For example, the currently approved ICR for the TSCA sections 402 and 404 Training, Certification, Accreditation and Standards for Lead-Based Paint Activities and Renovation, Repair, and Painting (EPA ICR No. 1715.13, OMB Control No. 2070-0155) estimates that 600 renovation training providers will submit an average of 14 post-training notifications per year. This yields a total of 8,400 post-training notifications per year at an average burden of 1.6 hours per response, resulting in a total burden for this activity of 13,440 hours at a cost of $339,578. In order to avoid double-counting, EPA's Economic Analysis and ICR for this action do not include the burden and cost of reinstating the post-training notification requirements.
The clarifying language being added to the rule explaining that training providers must follow the regulations does not affect the cost of compliance because it does not change any requirements for accredited training providers.
Removing the multi-jurisdiction fee and the requirement for hands on refresher renovator training is estimated to result in cost savings of up to $9.6 million per year using a 3% discount rate and $9.8 million per year using a 7% discount rate.
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted to OMB for review and approval under PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
There are 275 training providers accredited to offer renovator refresher training programs. All these training providers are assumed to apply to EPA to become accredited to offer e-learning refresher training once the requirement for hands-on renovator refresher training is removed. The applications must address issues such as how the trainer will ensure that students successfully complete the e-learning modules and the e-learning final assessment. Training providers are most likely to add an already reviewed and accepted e-learning course from another training provider to their training curriculum. In that case, their burden to become familiar with the new rule and to submit an application is estimated to average 13.8 hours per response, at a cost of $687. For the 275 training providers this results in a total burden of 3,795 hours at a total cost $188,861.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to an information collection request unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, or is otherwise required to submit the specific information by a statute. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the preamble of the final rule, are further displayed either by publication in the
Submit any comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to both EPA and OMB. For EPA, follow the instructions in
The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
1. A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. The SBA's definitions typically are based upon either a sales or an employment level, depending on the nature of the industry.
2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000.
3. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
The proposed rule would eliminate multi-jurisdiction registration fees for the LBP Activities program, and eliminate the hands-on training requirement from the lead renovation refresher training course. This results in cost savings for entities that no longer would pay the multi-jurisdiction registration fees and for renovators that would have a less expensive refresher training option available to them. Those training providers that choose to offer e-learning refresher renovator training
This action does not contain any Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202 or 205. This action is also not subject to the requirements of UMRA section 203 because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Those training providers (both those in the private sector as well as local or tribal governments) that choose to offer e-learning refresher renovator training would incur a cost to apply for accreditation of their e-learning courses. However, it is expected that only training providers that anticipate recovering accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additional accreditation because there is no requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher training option under the proposed rule.
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Local governments can serve as training providers, and those training providers that choose to offer e-learning refresher renovator training would incur a cost to apply for accreditation of their e-learning courses. However, it is expected that only training providers that anticipate recovering accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additional accreditation because there is no requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher training option under the proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Tribal governments can serve as training providers, and those training providers that choose to offer e-learning refresher renovator training would incur a cost to apply for accreditation of their e-learning courses. However, it is expected that only training providers that anticipate recovering accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additional accreditation because there is no requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher training option under the proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it would not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects because it does not require any action related to the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rule and specifically invites the public to identify additional potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The proposed rule would remove multi-jurisdiction fees for the LBP Activities program and remove the hands-on requirement for refresher renovator training. However, it would not change the work practice requirements for lead-based paint activities or renovation, repair or painting activities disturbing lead-based paint.
Environmental protection, Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681-2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) Accredited training programs, training program managers, and principal instructors must comply with all of the requirements of this section including approved terms of the application and all of the requirements and limitations specified in any accreditation documents issued to training programs.
(c)
(14) * * *
(i) The training manager must provide EPA notification after the completion of any renovator, dust sampling, or lead-based paint activities course. This notification must be received by EPA no later than 10 business days following course completion.
(d)
(e)
(2) Refresher courses for inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, and abatement worker must last a minimum of 8 training hours. Refresher courses for project designer, renovator, and dust sampling technician must last a minimum of 4 training hours. Refresher courses for all disciplines except renovator and project designer must include a hands-on component.
(3) Except for renovator and project designer courses, for all other courses offered, the training program shall conduct a hands-on assessment. With the exception of project designer courses, the training program shall conduct a course test at the completion of the course.
The amendments read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1)
(2)
(e) * * *
(2) Submit application and payment in the amount specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section in accordance with the instructions provided with the application package.
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Proposed rule; extension of the comment period.
This document extends the comment period for the Payment for Physician and Other Health Care Professional Services Purchased by Indian Health Programs and Medical Charges Associated with Non-Hospital-Based Care proposed rule, which was published in the
The comment period for the proposed rule published in the December 5, 2014
Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile transmission. You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to
2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address ONLY: Betty Gould, Regulations Officer, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson, Avenue, TMP STE 450, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to the above address.
4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments before the close of the comment period to the address above.
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Rockville address, please call telephone number (301) 443-1116 in advance to schedule your arrival with a staff member.
Comments will be made available for public inspection at the Rockville
Carl Harper, Director, Office of Resource Access and Partnerships, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Telephone: (301) 443-1553.
This proposed rule would amend Indian Health Service (IHS) Purchased and Referred Care, formally known as Contract Health Services, regulations to apply Medicare payment methodologies to all physician and other health care professional services and non-hospital based services that are either authorized under such regulations or purchased by urban Indian organizations. Specifically, it proposes that the health programs operated by IHS, Tribe, Tribal organization, or urban Indian organization will pay the lowest of the amount provided for under the applicable Medicare fee schedule, prospective payment system, or Medicare waiver; the amount negotiated by a repricing agent, if available; or the usual and customary billing rate. Repricing agents may be used to determine whether IHS may benefit from savings by utilizing negotiated rates offered through commercial health care networks. This proposed rule seeks comment on how to establish reimbursement that is consistent across Federal health care programs, aligns payment with inpatient services, and enables the IHS to expand beneficiary access to medical care.
This comment period is being extended to allow all interested parties the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. Therefore, we are extending the comment period until February 4, 2015.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to establish requirements for fishing in the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Expansion. The proposed rule is intended to implement fishery management measures consistent with Presidential Proclamation 9173.
NMFS must receive comments on the proposed rule by February 13, 2015.
You may submit comments on this proposed rule, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0142, by either of the following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
• Mail: Send written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.
You may review Presidential Proclamation 9173 (establishing the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Expansion) (PRI Monument Expansion), Presidential Proclamation 8663 (establishing the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument) (PRI Monument), and the PRI Monument fishing requirements established in Amendment 2 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Pacific Remote Island Areas published in 2013, available from
Bob Harman, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, tel 808-725-5170.
NMFS and the Council manage Pacific Island fisheries through fishery ecosystem plans (FEP) for American Samoa, the Mariana Archipelago (Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)), the Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA), Hawaii, and western Pacific pelagic fisheries. Fishing regulations for the Pacific Islands are found mainly in 50 CFR part 665.
In 2009, President Bush issued Presidential Proclamations that established three Marine National Monuments in the Pacific Islands under the authority of the Antiquities Act: The Marianas Trench Marine National Monument (Proclamation 8335), the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (PRI Monument, Proclamation 8336), and the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument (Proclamation 8337). The Proclamations directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to take appropriate action pursuant to their respective authorities under the Antiquities Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and such other authorities as may be available to implement the Proclamations, to regulate fisheries, including allowing for traditional indigenous fishing practices, and to ensure proper care and management of the monuments.
In 2013, the Council incorporated the Proclamations' fishery management provisions into its FEPs. With respect to the PRI Monument, the Council adopted Amendment 2 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Pacific Remote Island Areas establishing (a) the boundaries of the PRI Monument and various management units, (b) the prohibition on commercial fishing, and (c) management measures for non-
On September 27, 2014, President Obama issued Presidential Proclamation 9173 titled “Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Expansion” (PRI Monument Expansion). The PRI Monument Expansion includes the waters and submerged lands of Jarvis and Wake Islands and Johnston Atoll that lie from the PRI Monument boundary established in Proclamation 8336 to the seaward limit of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (U.S. EEZ) (as established in Proclamation 5030 of March 10, 1983). The additional area is approximately 308,316 square nautical miles. The intent of the PRI Monument Expansion was to provide expanded protection to objects of scientific interest, including seamounts, deep sea corals, sea turtles, seabirds, and other migratory species.
Proclamation 9173 prohibited commercial fishing in the PRI Monument Expansion and directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to ensure that recreational and non-commercial fishing continue to be managed as sustainable activities in the PRI Monument and Monument Expansion. Nothing in Proclamation 9173 changed the management of the PRI Monument, and it did not affect the management or change the boundaries of any island or atoll in the PRI Monument.
At its 161st meeting held from October 20-23, 2014, in Honolulu, the Council recommended amending the FEP regulations to implement the PRI Monument Expansion at Jarvis Island, Wake Island and Johnston Atoll as directed in Proclamation 9173. The Council further recommended that the regulations that now apply within the PRI Monument would be applicable within the PRI Monument Expansion. In this proposed action, and consistent with the existing requirements in the PRI Monument, commercial fishing would be prohibited within the PRI Monument Expansion, and managed non-commercial fishing would be allowed within the Monument Expansion as described above.
Consistent with the Proclamation and Council recommendations, this rule would amend regulations at 50 CFR part 665, subpart H. The fishing requirements for the Monument Expansion would include, among other things, the following:
• Prohibition of commercial fishing;
• Permit and reporting requirements for non-commercial and recreational fishing;
• Prohibition of conduct involving commercial fishing outside the PRI Monument and Monument Expansion and non-commercial fishing within the PRI Monument and Monument Expansion during the same trip; and
• Administrative housekeeping changes made in the 2013 final rule to the Federal permit and reporting requirements at §§ 665.13 and 665.14, and the vessel identification requirements at § 665.16.
Additional background information on this action is found in 78 FR 32996 (June 3, 2013), 78 FR 39583 (July 2, 2013), and 79 FR 58645 (September 29, 2014), and is not repeated here.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Fishery Ecosystem Plans for the Pacific Remote Island Areas and western Pacific pelagic fisheries, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule.
In January 2009, President Bush established, by Presidential Proclamation, the PRI Monument. NMFS implemented a final rule that codified the PRI Monument boundaries, prohibited commercial fishing in the PRI Monument, and established measures for managing non-commercial and recreational fishing in the Monument.
In September 2014, President Obama issued Presidential Proclamation 9173 that expanded the PRI Monument around Jarvis Island, Wake Island, and Johnston Atoll to the seaward limit of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The additional area is approximately 308,315 square nautical miles, which, when combined with the PRI Monument, is an area of approximately 339,960 square nautical miles. This proposed rule would codify the PRI Monument Expansion boundaries and extend the existing fishing management measures, including those that apply to non-commercial fishing, to the expanded area.
The proposed rule would apply to the following categories of small entities: Commercial fishing vessels (NAICS code 114111) and recreational charter fishing vessels (NAICS code 487210). NMFS believes that almost all businesses operating as commercial and recreational charter vessels in the U.S. territories and in Hawaii would be considered small entities, with annual revenues below $7.5 million and $20.5 million, respectively. The proposed rule would apply to hundreds of fishing vessels, regardless of gear type and size, many of which are primarily non-commercial fishing vessels that occasionally sell fish or take clients out on charter fishing trips. However, as discussed below, the rule will likely have little effect on overall commercial fishing and charter fishing activities relative to the status quo.
Fishing interest and activity in the PRIA, even before the PRI Monument was created, and including fishing within EEZ waters outside of PRI Monument boundaries that were recently included in the expanded boundary around three PRI islands and an atoll, has been low. As of November 2014, the type and number of PRIA fishing permits issued are as follows: Western Pacific pelagic squid (0), troll handline (7), bottomfish (2), crustaceans (0), precious corals (0), coral reef
This proposed rule would extend all existing PRI Monument requirements to the Monument Expansion areas. Proclamation 9173 prohibits commercial fishing in the Monument Expansion, so this proposed rule would codify that prohibition. This proposed rule could affect businesses operating commercial fishing and charter fishing vessels choosing to operate in the Monument Expansion. This is because the proposed rule prohibits the engaging in commercial fishing outside the Monument Expansion and non-commercial fishing inside the Monument Expansion during the same trip. Fishermen who wish to sell fish caught during their trip would not be able to fish non-commercially inside the Monument Expansion boundaries; this applies to all fishing vessels, as well as charter fishing vessels. This is likely to have little to no effect on revenues, as fishermen whose primary trip goal is to earn revenue, however modest, will choose not to fish non-commercially in the Monument.
Recreational charter vessel owners and operators would continue to be allowed to fish in the Monument Expansion under a Monument permit, but they may not sell, barter, or trade fish caught in the Monument Expansion, nor may they supplement trip fee revenues by selling fish caught outside the Monument Expansion on the same fishing trip in which they, their customers, or guests, conducted non-commercial or recreational fishing in the Monument Expansion.
In general, the primary revenue sources for charter fishing vessels are charter fees paid by customers and any revenue earned from selling fish would supplement trip fees. The restriction on supplemental fish sales is not expected to have a significant impact to small charter fishing entities because the overall number of recreational fishing trips to the PRI Monument is likely to be less than ten to fifteen each year; indeed, none have been made in 2013-2014 within the Monument Expansion area. The potential overall number of recreational fishing trips to the newly Monument Expansion is likely to be very small relative to the total annual number of charter fishing trips taken by affected vessels outside the Monument Expansion.
The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules and is not expected to have a significant impact on small entities (as discussed above), organizations or government jurisdictions. There do not appear to be disproportionate economic impacts from the proposed rule based on home port, gear type, or relative vessel size primarily because the remote distances required to be traveled by non-commercial fishing vessels is likely to reduce interest in fishing by most fishermen, except for fishermen who were already destined to visit the area (such as would occur at Palmyra Atoll Monument). The rule will not result in a benefit to any one class of vessel owners relative to home port, gear type, or relative vessel size: All vessels are welcome to apply for non-commercial permits, and only authorized gear types would be allowed to be used in the Monument Expansion. The proposed rule also will not place a substantial number of small entities, or any segment of small entities, at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities. As such, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
In 2013, the Council prepared an environmental assessment (EA, April 30, 2013) that described the impact on the human environment that would result from implementation of the fishing requirements for the three monuments. Based on the EA, Regulatory Impact Review, evaluation of the economic impacts under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, review of the NEPA criteria for significant effects, NMFS criteria for significance evaluated above, and the information provided in the finding of no significant impact (FONSI, May 1, 2013), NMFS found that there would be no significant impact on the human environment as a result of the action. For this proposed rule, NMFS considered relevant new information and circumstances, and none of the new information indicated that the proposed action would result in a change to impacts previously considered. Thus, NMFS concluded that there is no need to supplement the EA or FONSI.
Because this proposed rule would occur outside the coastal zone of any State and will not have reasonably foreseeable effects on any coastal use or resource, NMFS is not required to coordinate with State agencies under section 307 of the CZMA.
Administrative practice and procedure, Commercial fishing, Fisheries, Monuments and memorials, Pacific Remote Islands.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 665 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
The regulations in this subpart codify certain provisions of the Proclamations, and govern the administration of fishing in the Monument.
(a)
(c)
(d)
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing the 2015 rates that it will charge meat and poultry establishments, egg products plants, and importers and exporters for providing voluntary, overtime, and holiday inspection and identification, certification, and laboratory services. The 2015 basetime, overtime, holiday, and laboratory services rates will be applied beginning the first FSIS pay period approximately 30 days after the publication of this notice. This pay period begins on February 22, 2015.
FSIS will charge the rates announced in this notice beginning February 22, 2015.
For further information contact Michael Toner, Director, Budget Division, Office of Management, FSIS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 2159, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700; Telephone: (202) 690-8398, Fax: (202) 690-4155.
On April 12, 2011, FSIS published a final rule amending its regulations to establish formulas for calculating the rates it charges meat and poultry establishments, egg products plants, and importers and exporters for providing voluntary, overtime, and holiday inspection and identification, certification, and laboratory services (76 FR 20220).
In the final rule, FSIS stated that it would use the formulas to calculate the annual rates, publish the rates in a
This notice announces the 2015 rates, which will be applied starting on February 22, 2015.
The following table lists the 2015 Rates per hour, per employee, by type of service:
The regulations state that FSIS will calculate the rates using formulas that include the Office of Field Operations (OFO) and Office of International Affairs (OIA) inspection program personnel's previous fiscal year's regular direct pay and regular hours (9 CFR 391.2, 391.3, 391.4, 590.126, 590.128, 592.510, 592.520, and 592.530). In 2013, an Agency reorganization eliminated the OIA program office and transferred all of its inspection program personnel to OFO. Therefore, pay and hours of inspection program personnel are identified in the calculations as “OFO inspection program personnel's” pay and hours.
FSIS determined the 2015 rates using the following calculations:
The calculation for the 2015 basetime rate per hour per program employee is:
[FY 2014 OFO Regular Direct Pay divided by the previous fiscal year's Regular Hours ($396,361,959/13,707,069)] = $28.91 + ($28.91 * 1.7% (calendar year 2015 Cost of Living Increase)) = $29.41 + $8.78 (benefits rate) + $.79 (travel and operating rate) + $16.61 (overhead rate) + $.02 (bad debt allowance rate) = $55.60.
The calculation for the 2015 overtime rate per hour per program employee is:
[FY 2014 OFO Regular Direct Pay divided by previous fiscal year's Regular Hours ($396,361,959/13,707,069)]= $28.91 + ($28.91 * 1.7% (calendar year 2015 Cost of Living Increase)) = $29.41 * 1.5 = $44.11 + $8.78 (benefits rate) + $.79 (travel and operating rate) + $16.61 (overhead rate) + $.02 (bad debt allowance rate) = $70.30 (rounded to $70.28).
The calculation for the 2015 holiday rate per hour per program employee calculation is:
[FY 2014 OFO Regular Direct Pay divided by Regular Hours ($396,361,959/13,707,069)] = $28.91 + ($28.91 * 1.7% (calendar year 2015 Cost of Living Increase)) = $29.41 * 2 = $58.82 + $8.78 (benefits rate) + $.79 (travel and operating rate) + $16.61 (overhead rate) + $.02 (bad debt allowance rate) = $85.00.
The calculation for the 2015 laboratory services rate per hour per program employee is:
[FY 2014 OPHS Regular Direct Pay/OPHS Regular hours ($24,061,554/551,995)] = $43.59 + ($43.59 * 1.7% (calendar year 2015 Cost of Living Increase)) = $44.33 + $8.78 (benefits rate) + $.79 (travel and operating rate) + $16.61 (overhead rate) + $.02 (bad debt allowance rate) = $70.52.
These rates are components of the basetime, overtime, holiday, and laboratory services rates formulas.
The calculation for the 2015 benefits rate per hour per program employee is:
[FY 2014 Direct Benefits/(Total Regular hours + Total Overtime hours + Total Holiday hours) ($140,056,558/16,226,581)] = $8.63 + ($8.63 * 1.8% (calendar year 2015 Cost of Living Increase) = $8.78.
The calculation for the 2015 travel and operating rate per hour per program employee is:
[FY 2014 Total Direct Travel and Operating Costs/(Total Regular hours + Total Overtime hours + Total Holiday hours) ($12,514,065/16,226,581)] = $.77 + ($.77 * 1.8% (2015 Inflation) = $.79.
The calculation for the 2015 overhead rate per hour per program employee is:
[FY 2014 Total Overhead/(Total Regular hours + Total Overtime hours + Total Holiday hours) ($264,700,950/16,226,581)] = $16.31 + ($16.31 * 1.8% (2015 Inflation) = $16.61.
The 2015 calculation for bad debt rate per hour per program employee is:
[FY 2014 Total Bad Debt/(Total Regular hours + Total Overtime hours + Total Holiday hours) = ($365,480/16,226,581)] = $.02.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.
(202) 690-7442.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, are sponsoring a public meeting on February 23, 2015. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States (U.S.) positions that will be discussed at the 9th Session of the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Food (CCCF) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), taking place in New Delhi, India, March 16-20, 2015. The Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety and FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 9th Session of the CCCF and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 23, 2015, from 1:00-4:00 p.m.
The public meeting will take place at the Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, United States Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, Room TBA, College Park, MD 20740.
Documents related to the 9th Session of the CCCF will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address:
Nega Beru, U.S. Delegate to the 9th Session of the CCCF invites interested U.S. parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address
Attendees may register electronically at the same email address provided above by February 19, 2015. The meeting will be held in a Federal building; therefore, early registration is encouraged as it will expedite entry into the building and its parking area. You should also bring photo identification and plan for adequate time to pass through security screening systems. If you require parking, please include the vehicle make and tag number when you register. Attendees that are not able to attend the meeting in-person but wish to participate may do so by phone.
If you wish to participate in the public meeting for the 9th Session of CCCF by conference call, please use the call-in number.
Call-In Number: 1-888-844-9904.
The participant code will be posted on the Web page below:
Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in the food trade.
The CCCF is responsible for:
(a) Establishing or endorsing permitted maximum levels, and where necessary revising existing guideline levels for contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed;
(b) Preparing priority lists of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants for risk assessment by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA);
(c) Considering and elaborating methods of analysis and sampling for the determination of contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed;
(d) Considering and elaborating standards or codes of practice for related subjects;
(e) Considering other matters assigned to it by the Commission in relation to contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and feed.
The Committee is chaired by The Netherlands.
The following items on the Agenda for the 9th Session of the CCCF will be discussed during the public meeting:
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat before the meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see
At the February 23, 2015, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described, discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to Dr. Henry Kim for the 9th Session of the CCCF (see
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.
(202) 690-7442.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are sponsoring a public meeting on March 19, 2015. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States (U.S.) positions that will be discussed at the 22nd Session of the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCRVDF) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), taking place in San Jose, Costa Rica, from April 27-May 1, 2015. The Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety and the Food and Drug Administration recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 22nd Session of CCRVDF, and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 19, 2015 from 1:00-4:00 p.m.
The public meeting will take place at the Jamie L. Whitten Building, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., Room 107-A, Washington, DC 20250.
Documents related to the 22nd Session of CCRVDF will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address:
Kevin Greenlees, U.S. Delegate to the 22nd Session of the CCRVDF, invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
Call in Number: 1-888-858-2144.
The participant code will be posted on the Web page below:
The Codex Alimentarius (Codex) was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade.
The CCRVDF is responsible for determining priorities for the consideration of residues of veterinary drugs in foods, recommending maximum levels of such substances; developing codes of practice as may be required, and considering methods of sampling and analysis for the determination of veterinary drug residues in foods.
The Committee is hosted by the United States of America.
The following items on the Agenda for the 21st Session of the CCRVDF will be discussed during the public meeting:
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat prior to the Meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see
At the March 19, 2015, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 22nd session of the CCRVDF, Kevin Greenlees (see
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.
(202) 690-7442.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of the Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are sponsoring a public meeting on February 17, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States (U.S.) positions to be discussed at the 47th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), taking place in Xi'an, China, March 23-27, 2015. The Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety and FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 47th Session of the CCFA and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 17, 2015, from 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
The public meeting will take place at the Harvey Wiley Federal Building, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, Rooms 1A-001 and 1A-002, College Park, MD 20740.
Documents related to the 47th Session of the CCFA will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address:
Susan Carberry, U.S. Delegate to the 47th Session of the CCFA and FDA, invite U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
Attendees may register by emailing
Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in trade.
The CCFA establishes or endorses permitted maximum levels for individual food additives; prepares priority lists of food additives for risk assessment by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA); assigns functional classes and International Numbering System (INS) numbers to individual food additives; recommends specifications of identity and purity for food additives for adoption by Codex; considers methods of analysis for the determination of additives in food; and considers and elaborates standards or codes for related subjects such as labeling of food additives when sold as such. The CCFA is hosted by China.
The following items on the agenda for the 47th Session of the CCFA will be discussed during the public meeting:
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Codex Secretariat prior to the meeting. Members of the public may access these documents at
At the February 17, 2015, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 47th Session of the CCFA, Dr. Susan Carberry at the following email address:
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.
(202) 690-7442.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of a 30-day extension to the public comment period, notice of public scoping meeting and intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
On November 28, 2014, Rural Utilities Service (RUS) published a Notice of Intent (NOI) announcing its intent to cancel a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (SFEIS) and prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in association with a financial assistance request for a proposal submitted to the Agency by Energy Answers Arecibo, LLC (Energy Answers). RUS is extending the comment period by an additional 30 days from the date of this notice. RUS intends to conduct public scoping, conduct a public scoping meeting, and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to meet its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and RUS's Environmental and Policies and Procedures (7 CFR part 1794) in connection with potential impacts related to the Energy Answers proposal. The proposal consists of constructing a waste-to-energy generation and resource recovery facility in the Cambalache Ward of Arecibo, Puerto Rico. RUS is providing notice of the intention to conduct public scoping and prepare an EIS related to the proposal submitted by Energy Answers.
RUS is considering funding this application, thereby making the proposal an undertaking subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470(f), and its implementing regulation, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR part 800). Any party wishing to participate directly with RUS as a “consulting party” in Section 106 review may submit a written request to the RUS contact provided below. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f)(3), RUS will consider, and provide a timely response to, any and all requests for consulting party status.
Written requests to participate as a “consulting party” and/or comments concerning the public scoping or about this Notice of Intent must be received on or before February 13, 2015. A notice of availability of a Draft EIS will be published in the
Project-related information will be available at RUS's Web site located at:
To request “consulting party” status, submit comments or for further information, please contact: Ms. Stephanie Strength, Environmental Protection Specialist, USDA/RUS, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 2244-S, Stop 1571, Washington, DC 20250-1571, Telephone: (970) 403-3559, fax: (202) 690-0649, or email:
On November 28, 2014, Rural Utilities Service (RUS) published a Notice of Intent (NOI) announcing its intent to cancel a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (SFEIS) and prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in association with a financial assistance request for a proposal submitted to the Agency by Energy Answers Arecibo, LLC (Energy Answers). RUS is extending the comment period by an additional 30 days from the date of this notice. RUS intends to conduct public scoping, conduct a public scoping meeting, and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and is soliciting public comments on the scope of an EIS that it intends to prepare for Energy Answers' proposal. In accordance with 7 CFR 1794.74 and 40 CFR 1502.21, RUS intends to incorporate by reference the environmental impact analyses and documentation prepared by the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company (PRIDCO). PRIDCO served as a lead agency in preparation of an EIS prepared under the Puerto Rico Environmental Public Policy Act, Article 4(B)(3), (Law No. 416, September 22, 2004). RUS has copies of this EIS and all associated appendices posted on this Web site:
RUS is in receipt of all past public involvement activities, public comments, and responses to public comments from both PRIDCO and USEPA actions. While RUS understands the concerns expressed in the past by the public, the Agency strongly encourages all interested parties to submit scoping comments to the RUS contact listed in the
Energy Answers proposes to construct a waste-to-energy generation and resource recovery facility in the Cambalache Ward of Arecibo, Puerto
Among the alternatives that RUS will address in the EIS is the No Action alternative, under which the proposal would not be undertaken. In the EIS, the effects of the proposal will be compared to the existing conditions in the proposal area. Public health and safety, environmental impacts, and engineering aspects of the proposal will be considered in the EIS.
RUS is the lead Federal agency, as defined at 40 CFR 1501.5, for preparation of the EIS. With this Notice, Federal and State agencies and federally recognized Native American Tribes with jurisdiction or special expertise are invited to be cooperating agencies. Such agencies or tribes may make a request to RUS to be a cooperating agency by contacting the RUS contact provided in this Notice. Designated cooperating agencies have certain responsibilities to support the NEPA and scoping process, as specified at 40 CFR 1501.6(b).
As part of its broad environmental review process, RUS must take into account the effect of the proposal on historic properties in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and its implementing regulation, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR part 800). Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), RUS is using its procedures for public involvement under NEPA to meet its responsibilities to solicit and consider the views of the public during Section 106 review. Accordingly, comments submitted in response to this Notice will inform RUS decision-making during Section 106 review.
As applicable, the EIS will document changes in the affected environment and environmental consequences that may have occurred since the PRIDCO-prepared Final EIS was published in 2010 and USEPA's PSD permit action. The PRIDCO-prepared Final EIS is available in both Spanish and English for review at the addresses provided in this Notice. USEPA PSD permit actions are available for review at the address provided in this notice. RUS's EIS will incorporate this documentation by reference and focus on those topics that have changed since PRIDCO's Final EIS was published. RUS's Draft EIS will be available for review and comment for 45 days. Following the 45-day review period, RUS will prepare a Final EIS. After a 30-day review period, RUS will publish a Record of Decision (ROD). Notices announcing the availability of the Draft EIS, Final EIS and the ROD will be published in the
Any final action by RUS related to the proposal will be subject to, and contingent upon, compliance with all relevant executive orders and federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations in addition to the completion of the environmental review requirements as prescribed in RUS's Environmental Policies and Procedures, 7 CFR part 1794, as amended.
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).
Title 13, United States Code, Section 182; and Title 29, United States Code, Sections 1-9.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 14 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).
This data collection will mirror that which was collected in survey year 2013, prior to the recent redesign of income and health insurance questions in 2014. The resulting data will serve to provide a baseline for comparison to data collected in February, March, and April from the 2015 ASEC, which will consist of the redesigned questions.
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
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Salt Lake City Corporation, grantee of FTZ 30, requesting subzone status for the facility of Red Wing Shoe Company, Inc., located in Salt Lake City, Utah. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on January 8, 2015.
The proposed subzone (10.8 acres) is located at 1841, 1883, 1901 and 1941 South 5070 West, Salt Lake City. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 30.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is February 23, 2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to March 10, 2015.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for nominations.
NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, is seeking nominations for the advisory committee established under the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (Act). The Permanent Advisory Committee, composed of individuals from groups concerned with the fisheries covered by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention (Convention), will be given the opportunity to provide input to the United States Commissioners to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (Commission) regarding the deliberations and decisions of the Commission.
Nominations must be received no later than March 2, 2015.
Nominations should be directed to Michael Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, and may be submitted by any of the following means:
•
•
•
Emily Crigler, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; telephone: 808-725-5036; facsimile: 808-725-5215; email:
The objective of the Convention is to ensure, through effective management, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks in the western and central Pacific Ocean in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (UNCLOS) and the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the UNCLOS Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. The Convention establishes the Commission, the secretariat of which is based in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia.
The Convention applies to all highly migratory fish stocks (defined as all fish stocks of the species listed in Annex I of the UNCLOS occurring in the Convention Area, and such other species of fish as the Commission may determine), except sauries.
The United States actively supported the negotiations and the development of the Convention and signed the Convention when it was opened for signature in 2000. It participated as a cooperating non-member of the Commission since it became operational in 2005. The United States became a Contracting Party to the Convention and a full member of the Commission when
The Act (16 U.S.C. 6902) provides (in section 6902(d)) that the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the United States Commissioners to the Commission, will appoint individuals as members of the advisory committee established under the Act, referred to here as the “Permanent Advisory Committee”.
The appointed members of the Permanent Advisory Committee are to include not less than 15 nor more than 20 individuals selected from the various groups concerned with the fisheries covered by the Convention, providing, to the extent practicable, an equitable balance among such groups. On behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, NMFS is now seeking nominations for these appointments.
In addition to the 15-20 appointed members, the Permanent Advisory Committee includes the chair of the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council's Advisory Committee (or designee), and officials of the fisheries management authorities of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands (or their designees).
Members of the Permanent Advisory Committee will be invited to attend all non-executive meetings of the United States Commissioners to the Commission and at such meetings will be given opportunity to examine and be heard on all proposed programs of investigation, reports, recommendations, and regulations of the Commission.
Each appointed member of the Permanent Advisory Committee will serve for a term of two years and is eligible for reappointment. This request for nominations is for the term to begin on or after August 3, 2015, and is for a term of two consecutive years.
The Secretaries of Commerce and State will furnish the Permanent Advisory Committee with relevant information concerning fisheries and international fishery agreements.
NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, will provide to the Permanent Advisory Committee administrative and technical support services as are necessary for its effective functioning.
Appointed members of the Permanent Advisory Committee will serve without pay, but while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the advisory committee will be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703 of title 5, United States Code. They will not be considered Federal employees while performing service as members of the advisory committee except for the purposes of injury compensation or tort claims liability as provided in chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code and Chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code.
Nominations for the Permanent Advisory Committee should be submitted to NMFS (see
16 U.S.C. 6902.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled National Assessment of the Social Innovation Fund (SIF) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Lily Zandniapour, Ph.D., at 202-606-6939 or email to
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1)
(2)
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, 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;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Social Innovation Fund Progress Report and Performance Measure Module for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Keisha Kersey, at 202-606-3905 or email to
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or
(2) By email to:
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, 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;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 14-59 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
The Government of Greece has requested a possible sale of 10 CH-47D Model Chinook Helicopters to include 23 T55-GA-714A Engines (20 installed and, 3 spares), 12 AN/AAR-57 Common Missile Warning System (10 installed and 2 spares), 12 AN/ARC-220 High Frequency (HF) Radios, 12 AN/ARC-186 Very High Frequency (VHF) AM/FM Radios, 12 AN/ARC-164 Ultra High Frequency (UHF)-AM, 12 AN/ARN 123 VOR ILS Marker Beacons, 12 AN/ARN-89 or AN/ARN-149 Direction Finder Sets, 12 AN/ASN-128 Doppler/Global Positioning System Navigation Sets, 12 AN/ARC-201D or AN/ARC-201E VHF FM Homing Radios, 12 AN/APX-118 Transponders, 3 AN/APX-118A Transponders, 12 AN/APR-39A(V)1 Radar Signal Detecting Sets, mission equipment, communication and navigation equipment, Maintenance Work Orders/Engineering Change Proposals (MWO/ECPs), aircraft hardware and software support, repair and return, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, support equipment, minor modifications, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. government and contractor technical and engineering support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $150 million.
This proposed sale of these helicopters and support will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a NATO ally.
This sale will contribute to both the United States' and Greece's defense and security goal of greater stability in the Balkans and the Levant regions by enhancing a critical helicopter lift capability. Additionally, this sale will facilitate greater interoperability of Greek systems both bilaterally and within NATO. Greece, which already operates CH-47s, will have no difficulty absorbing these helicopters into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of these helicopters and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
There is no principal contractor as the systems will be coming from U.S. Army stock. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Greece at some point in future.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. Identification and security classification of classified equipment, major components, subsystems, software, and technical data (performance, maintenance, operational (R&M, etc), documentation, training devices, and services to be conveyed with the purposed sale are classified up to Secret. The CH-47D is a medium lift aircraft, remanufactured from CH-47A, B, and C aircraft. The avionic system in the CH-47D helicopter consists of the following communications equipment: HF (AN/ARC-220), VHF AM/FM (AN/ARC-186) and UHF-AM (AN/ARC 164). The navigation equipment includes Automatic Direction Finder (AN/ARN-89 or 149), VOR ILS Marker Beacon (AN/ARN 123), Doppler/GPS (AN/ASN 128) Navigation System, and VHF FM Homing (AN/ARC-201D) provided through the FM communications radio. Transponder equipment (AN/APX-118 and AN/APX-118A) consists of an IFF receiver with inputs from the barometric altimeter for altitude encoding. Mission equipment consists of the radar signal detecting set, (AN/APR-39A (V) 1) and the Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) AN/AAR-57.
2. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar advanced capabilities.
3. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the US foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Greece.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.
Notice.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District is seeking comment from the public on a proposal to reduce the lock operating hours on the Okeechobee Waterway.
The new proposed operating hours at each of the five locks are 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., seven days a week. The proposed change would take effect no earlier than April 1, 2015 and would impact the following locks:
The changes are the result of an evaluation of the service levels at each lock as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers seek methods to gain efficiencies on water transit systems across the nation. The changes will allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to reduce costs while still maintaining operating hours that accommodate 95 percent of the boat traffic passing through the locks.
Submit written comments concerning this notice by February 13, 2015.
Written inquires can be sent to Mr. Carl Williams at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers South Florida Operations Office located at 525 Ridgelawn Road, Clewiston, Fl 33440. Email inquiries can be sent to
Mr. Carl Williams at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers South Florida Operations Office located at 525 Ridgelawn Road, Clewiston, Fl 33440.
Canaveral Lock near Port Canaveral will not be
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities—Television Access Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2015.
This priority is:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for implementing and monitoring compliance with the captioning requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Act). Consistent with the Act, the FCC requires most television programs to be captioned, but provides for certain exemptions to this requirement. The FCC also has limited requirements for video description. The FCC's video description requirements provide some access to television programs for individuals with blindness or low vision, but are not as widely applicable as the closed captioning requirements. Therefore, only a small number of television programs are actually broadcast with video description. The following Web sites provide more information on captioning and video description:
Pursuant to the authority in IDEA Section 1464(c), the Department has made awards for television access since 1995 in order to provide video description and captioning under the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities program. The following Web site contains abstracts of previously funded projects:
The purpose of this absolute priority for Television Access is to fund cooperative agreements that will improve the learning opportunities for children with disabilities by providing access to television programming through high-quality video description and captioning. This project will support access—through high-quality video description and captioning—to widely available television programs that are appropriate for use in the classroom setting and are not otherwise required to be captioned or described by the FCC.
In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements in this priority. The Department's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) encourages innovative approaches to meet these requirements:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will address the need for access to educational television programming to support equitable opportunities in early learning programs, schools, and workplaces. To meet this requirement, the applicant must—
(1) Present applicable national, State, regional, or local data demonstrating the need for accessible educational television programs in schools and workplaces for children with disabilities, including children with disabilities who may be underserved; and
(2) Demonstrate knowledge of the benefits, services, or opportunities that are available through the use of educational television programming in schools and workplaces that are fully accessible to children with disabilities, including children with disabilities who may be underserved.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Services,” how the project will—
(1) Take into account the preferences of educators, students with disabilities, and the parents of these students in selecting the programming to be video described, or video described and captioned;
(2) Use criteria to select television programs of high educational value that are widely available and are appropriate for use in the classroom setting for children with disabilities at the
(3) Determine the extent to which the programming selected for video description or video description and captioning is widely available;
(4) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, linguistic diversity, gender, age, or disability;
(5) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—
(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
(ii) The logic model on how the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes;
(6) Use a conceptual framework to develop project plans and activities describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework; and
(7) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based practices. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) The current research and evidence-based practices related to the benefits, services, or opportunities that are available through the use of educational television programming in schools and workplaces; and
(ii) The process the proposed project will use to incorporate current research and evidence-based practices to guide the development and delivery of its products and services.
(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how—
(1) The proposed key personnel, consultants, and contractors have the qualifications, experience, and commitment to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(2) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, linguistic diversity, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;
(3) The applicant and key partners have adequate resources to carry out proposed project activities. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) The willingness of the potential television program providers or program owners, as appropriate, to permit and facilitate the video description or the video description and captioning of their programs;
(ii) Requirements and assurances that the programming that is made accessible under this project will continue to contain those video descriptions and captions after the programming is aired; and
(iii) How programming video described or captioned under this project would not otherwise be video described or captioned to meet the FCC's requirements, or how this programming is specifically exempt from the FCC's requirements;
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) The total number of program hours proposed to be made accessible through video description, or video description and captioning, under this project;
(ii) The cost per hour for video description and, if the applicant is proposing both video description and captioning, the cost per hour for video description and for captioning;
(iii) A plan, if any, to increase the anticipated shelf-life and distribution of educational programming described, or captioned and described, under this project; and
(iv) How the project will use emerging technology to lower the cost of video description.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how—
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
(2) Key personnel, consultants, and contractors will be sufficiently allocated to the project and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including, but not limited to, students and families, early intervention service providers, educators, researchers, and other OSEP-funded projects.
(e) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” include an evaluation plan, as described in the following paragraphs. The evaluation plan must describe: measures of progress in implementation, including the extent to which the project's products and services have reached its target population; and measures of intended outcomes or results of the project's activities in order to assess the effectiveness of those activities.
In designing the evaluation plan, the project must—
(1) Revise, as needed, the logic model submitted in the grant application to provide for a more comprehensive measurement of implementation and outcomes and to reflect any changes or clarifications to the model discussed at the kick-off meeting;
(2) Revise, as needed, the evaluation plan submitted in the grant application so that it clearly—
(i) Specifies the measures and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to the evaluation questions, suggests analytic strategies for those data, provides a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and includes staff assignments for completion of the plan; and
(ii) Can be used to assist the project director and the OSEP project officer to specify the performance measures to be addressed in the project's annual performance report; and
(3) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this priority and implementing the evaluation plan.
(f) In the narrative under “Required Project Assurances” or appendices as directed, the applicant must—
(1) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project. A logic model communicates how a project will achieve its intended outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project.
The following Web sites provide more information on logic models:
(2) Include, in Appendix A, a conceptual framework for the project;
(3) Include, in Appendix A, person-loading charts and timelines to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;
(4) Include in the budget costs associated with attendance at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting held in Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.
Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
(ii) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period; and
(iii) One trip annually to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and
(5) Ensure that the project maintains a Web site that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility.
20 U.S.C. 1474 and 1481.
The current regulations follow: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485.
At the time we award grants under this NIA, the following regulations will apply: (a) EDGAR in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485, and the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
Contingent on the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2016 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
(a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
(b) Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding under this program must involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.327C.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit Part III to no more than 50 pages, using the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit and double-spacing requirements do not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the page limit and double-spacing requirement does apply to all of Part III, the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit; or if you apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV.7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one-to-two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
Applications for grants under the Television Access competition, CFDA number 84.327C, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the Television Access competition at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the application instructions.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Jo Ann McCann, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4076, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2600. FAX: (202) 245-7617.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.327C), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual performance reports and additional performance data to the Department (34 CFR 75.590 and 75.591).
5.
Jo Ann McCann, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4076, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2600. Telephone: (202) 245-7434.
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of orders.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy gives notice that during September 2014, it issued orders granting authority to import and export natural gas, to import and export liquefied natural gas, to vacate prior authority, and to approve change in control of authority. These orders are summarized in the attached appendix and may be found on the FE Web site at
They are also available for inspection and copying in the Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply, Docket Room 3E-033, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: § 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Modifications to Att O Formula Rate to be effective 2/1/2015.
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 exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
284.123(g) Protests Due:
284.123(g) Protests Due:
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 date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of EPA's revised human health risk assessment for the registration review of chlorpyrifos and opens a public comment period on this document. A preliminary human health risk assessment was completed and released for public comment in July 2011 (76 FR 39399) and is available in the chlorpyrifos registration review docket. 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
Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850, 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.
3.
EPA is conducting its registration review of chlorpyrifos 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) (7 U.S.C. 136a(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 chlorpyrifos to ensure that it continues to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration—that is, that chlorpyrifos can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide, acaricide, and miticide used to control a variety of insects on food and feed crops, golf course, turf, greenhouses, nonstructural wood treatments (such as utility poles and fence posts) ant bait stations, and as an adult mosquitocide. EPA has completed a comprehensive revised human health risk assessment.
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 revised human health risk assessment for chlorpyrifos. Such comments and input could address, among other things, the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions, as applied to this revised risk assessment as well as submitting suggestions for mitigating any risks identified in the revised risk assessment. A Guide to Commenters document has been placed in the docket along with the revised human health assessment. This document poses questions for the public to respond to. The Agency will consider all comments
1.
Information on the Agency's registration review program and its implementing regulation is available at
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.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before February 13, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the file symbol or registration number of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Jennifer McLain, Antimicrobials Division (AD) (7510P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
The mailing address for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the end of each application summary.
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is announcing its receipt of test data submitted pursuant to test rules issued by EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As required by TSCA, this document identifies each chemical substance and/or mixture for which test data have been received; the uses or intended uses of such chemical substance and/or mixture; and describes the nature of the test data received. Each chemical substance and/or mixture related to this announcement is identified in Unit I. under
Information about the following chemical substances and/or mixtures is provided in Unit IV.:
Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a notice in the
A docket, identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677, has been established for this
The docket for this
This unit contains the information required by TSCA section 4(d) for the test data received by EPA.
1.
2.
3.
• Health. A Combined Repeated Dose Toxicity Study with a Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening of Sulfurated Decene by Oral Gavage in Rats. The docket ID number assigned to this data is EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112.
1.
2.
3.
•
15 U.S.C. 2601
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Notice.
This Notice is to inform the public, in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (“Ex-Im Bank”), that Ex-Im Bank has received an application for final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in excess of $100 million (as calculated in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter).
Comments received within the comment period specified below will be presented to the Ex-Im Bank Board of Directors prior to final action on this Transaction.
Comments must be received on or before February 9, 2015 to be assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction by the Board of Directors of Ex-Im Bank.
Comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov at
To support the export of U.S.-manufactured aircraft to the Republic of Korea.
To be used for the transportation of passengers and air cargo between the Republic of Korea and other countries.
To the extent that Ex-Im Bank is reasonably aware, the item(s) being exported maybe used to produce exports or provide services in competition with the exportation of goods or provision of services by a United States industry.
Principal Supplier: The Boeing Company
Obligor: Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd.
Guarantor(s): None
Boeing 747 passenger and cargo aircraft and B777 cargo aircraft
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Notice.
This Notice is to inform the public, in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (“Ex-Im Bank”), that Ex-Im Bank has received an application for final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in excess of $100 million (as calculated in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter).
Comments received within the comment period specified below will be presented to the Ex-Im Bank Board of Directors prior to final action on this Transaction.
Comments must be received on or before February 9, 2015 to be assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction by the Board of Directors of Ex-Im Bank.
Comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov at
To support the export of U.S.-manufactured commercial aircraft to Norway.
To be used for medium-haul and long-haul passenger air transport between Scandinavia and the rest of Europe, the United States and Asia.
To the extent that Ex-Im Bank is reasonably aware, the items being exported may be used to produce exports or provide services in competition with the exportation of goods or provision of services by a United States industry.
Principal Supplier: The Boeing Company
Obligor: Norwegian Air Shuttle A.S.A.
Guarantor(s): N/A
Boeing 737 and 787 aircraft
Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (ASC).
Notice of open meeting.
The Appraisal Subcommittee Advisory Committee for Development of Regulations (ASCAC or Committee) will meet in open session on Thursday, February 12, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Friday, February 13, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. All times are in the Eastern time zone. The primary purpose of this meeting is to continue discussion on potential recommendations to the ASC regarding Temporary Practice, National Registries (Appraisers and Appraisal Management Companies), Information Sharing and Enforcement. The final agenda will be posted on the ASC Web site at
ASCAC will meet on Thursday, February 12, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Friday, February 13, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. All times are in the Eastern time zone. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn located at 815 14th Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. Directional signs noting the meeting location for the ASCAC Meeting will be located in the hotel lobby.
Ms. Lori Schuster, Designated Federal Officer, ASC, 1401 H Street NW., Suite 760, Washington, DC 20005; telephone (202) 595-7578; or via email at
The ASC oversees the real estate appraisal process as it relates to federally related transactions as defined in Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989. The 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act included amendments to Title XI and expanded the ASC's authority to include rulemaking authority in four areas: (1) Temporary practice; (2) national registries; (3) information sharing; and (4) enforcement. The ASC is primarily seeking independent advice from ASCAC concerning sanctions ASCAC deems advisable for purposes of enforcement of regulations promulgated by the ASC to State appraiser regulatory programs.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 6, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 29, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:
1.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,328.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
In 1996, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act was amended by Public Law 104-235 to require that any State receiving the Basic State Grant work with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide specific data on child maltreatment, to the extent practicable. These provisions were retained in the 2010 reauthorization of CAPTA (Pub. L. 113-320).
Each State to which a grant is made under this section shall annually work with the Secretary to provide, to the maximum extent practicable, a report that includes the following:
The Children's Bureau proposes to continue collecting the NCANDS data through the two files of the Detailed Case Data Component, the Child File (the case-level component of NCANDS) and the Agency File (additional aggregate data, which cannot be collected at the case level). Technical assistance will be provided so that all States may provide the Child File and Agency File data to NCANDS.
There are no proposed changes to the NCANDS data collection instruments. New fields were implemented during the previous OMB clearance cycle in support of the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 and to improve reporting on federal performance measures.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,264.
In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above.
Copies of the proposed collection of information may be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for a hearing on a proposal to revoke the biologics license (U.S. License No. 0916) issued to CHEMBIOMED, LTD. (CHEMBIOMED), for the manufacture of Anti-A (Murine Monoclonal), Anti-B (Murine Monoclonal), Anti-Le
CHEMBIOMED may submit electronic or written requests for a hearing by February 13, 2015, and any data and information justifying a hearing by March 16, 2015. Other interested persons may submit electronic or written comments on the proposed revocation by March 16, 2015.
Submit electronic requests for a hearing, any data and information justifying a hearing, and comments to
John Reilly, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is initiating proceedings to revoke the biologics license (U.S. License No. 0916) issued to CHEMBIOMED, 9515 107th St., Rm. 401, Edmonton AB T5K 2C3, Canada, for the manufacture of Anti-A (Murine Monoclonal), Anti-B (Murine Monoclonal), Anti-Le
In a phone conversation that occurred on July 7, 1992, a former CHEMBIOMED employee informed FDA that CHEMBIOMED was no longer in business, had ceased the manufacture of licensed products, and had also ceased shipments of licensed products to the United States.
In a letter dated June 16, 1995, FDA requested from the Authorized Official (Responsible Head) of CHEMBIOMED a status update for the production of all of the products for which CHEMBIOMED held a U.S. license. This letter requested that the firm notify FDA in writing of the firm's status and also informed the Authorized Official that in the absence of a response to this letter that FDA would take action to revoke CHEMBIOMED's U.S. license. FDA did not receive a response to its letter dated June 16, 1995.
In a certified, return-receipt letter dated October 18, 1995, FDA requested that the Authorized Official of CHEMBIOMED inform FDA whether or not the firm intended to pursue a product license application supplement request dated May 6, 1987. In the October 18, 1995 letter, FDA also informed the Authorized Official that the product license application supplement request had been placed in the FDA inactive files. FDA did not receive a response to its certified, return-receipt letter dated October 18, 1995.
In a letter to CHEMBIOMED dated December 19, 2012, FDA provided notice of FDA's intent to revoke U.S. License No. 0916 and announced its intent to offer an opportunity for a hearing. FDA indicated that FDA registrations for CHEMBIOMED facilities have not been updated since May 12, 1994. The letter also advised the Authorized Official that, under 21 CFR 601.5(b)(1)(i) and (ii) of FDA's regulations, proceedings for license revocation may be instituted when FDA finds that authorized FDA employees have been unable to gain access to an establishment for the purpose of carrying out an inspection, or when the manufacturing of a product has been discontinued to an extent that a meaningful inspection cannot be made. The December 19, 2012 letter to CHEMBIOMED, sent via United Parcel Service (UPS), was returned as undeliverable.
Because FDA has made reasonable efforts to notify CHEMBIOMED of the proposed revocation and no response has been received from the firm, FDA is proceeding under 21 CFR 12.21(b) and issuing this notice of opportunity for a hearing on a proposal to revoke the biologics license (US. License No. 0916) issued to CHEMBIOMED for the manufacture of Anti-A (Murine Monoclonal), Anti-B (Murine Monoclonal), Anti-Le
FDA has placed copies of the documents relevant to the proposed revocation on file with the Division of Dockets Management (see
CHEMBIOMED may submit an electronic or written request for a hearing to the Division of Dockets Management by February 13, 2015, and any data and information justifying a hearing to the Division of Dockets Management by March 16, 2015. Other interested persons may submit electronic or written comments on the proposed license revocation to the Division of Dockets Management by March 16, 2015. The failure of the licensee, CHEMBIOMED, to file a timely electronic or written request for a hearing constitutes an election by the licensee not to avail itself of the opportunity for a hearing concerning the proposed license revocation (§ 12.22(b)).
FDA's procedures and requirements governing a notice of opportunity for a hearing, notice of appearance and request for a hearing, grant or denial of a hearing, and submission of data and information to justify a hearing on a proposed revocation of a license are contained in 21 CFR parts 12 and 601. A request for a hearing may not rest on mere allegations or denials, but must set forth a genuine and substantial issue of fact that requires a hearing (§ 12.24(b)). If it conclusively appears from the face of the data, information, and factual analyses submitted in support of the request for a hearing that there is no genuine and substantial issue of fact for resolution at a hearing, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) will deny the hearing request, making findings and conclusions that justify the denial (§ 12.24(b)(3)).
Only one copy of any submission need be provided to FDA. Submissions are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Such submissions, except for data and information prohibited from public disclosure under 21 CFR 10.20(j)(2)(i), 21 U.S.C. 331(j) or 18 U.S.C. 1905, may be examined in the Division of Dockets
This notice is issued under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262) and sections 201, 501, 502, 505, and 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Acts (21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 355, and 371), and under the authority delegated to the Commissioner and redelegated to the Director and Deputy Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (FDA Staff Manual Guide 1410.203).
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Health and Human Services (HHS).
updating of the scoring criteria for determining mental health professional shortage areas (HPSA) of greatest need.
In accordance with the requirements of section 333A(b)(1) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended by the Health Care Safety Net Amendments of 2002, 42 U.S.C. 254f-1(b)(1), the Secretary of HHS shall establish the criteria which she will use to make determinations under section 333A(a)(1)(A) of the HPSAs with the greatest shortages. This notice sets forth revised criteria for determining mental health HPSAs with the greatest shortage. This updates the previous criteria published on May 30, 2003.
Effective January 14, 2015.
Kae Brickerd, Ph.D., Chief, Shortage Designation Branch, Bureau of Health Workforce, Division of Policy and Shortage Designation, Health Resources and Services Administration, 11W14 Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, 301 945-0828,
Section 332 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 254e, provides that the Secretary shall designate HPSAs based on criteria established by regulation. HPSAs are defined in Section 332 to include (1) urban and rural geographic areas with shortages of health professionals, (2) population groups with such shortages, and (3) facilities with such shortages. The required regulations setting forth the criteria for designating HPSAs are codified at 42 CFR part 5. Section 333A(a)(1)(A) of the PHS Act and requires that the Secretary give priority in the assignment of National Health Service Corps personnel to entities serving HPSAs with the greatest health professional shortage. Section 333A(b) of the PHS Act requires that the Secretary establish criteria specifying the manner in which she determines HPSAs of greatest shortage and publish the criteria, and any revisions to the criteria, in the
In the
The point scale published in 2003 for the population to provider ratio is presented in the following table:
To reflect the mental health services available in a community, entities applying for Mental Health HPSAs are encouraged to report on the number of both psychiatrists and core mental health providers rendering services. The revised point scale is as follows:
For Geographic High Need and Population HPSAs, as defined in the designation criteria set forth in 42 CFR part 5, Appendix C, Part 1, and A.4.
Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Paul C. Pearlman, Ph.D., Center for Global Health, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Dr., RM 3W550, Rockville, MD 20850 or call non-toll-free number 240-276-5354 or Email your request, including your address to:
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 83.
15 U.S.C. 3719.
Through the “Innovations in Measuring and Managing Addiction Treatment Quality” Challenge (the “Challenge”), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), challenges the general public to make concrete advances toward improving the quality of addiction treatment. Specifically, through this Challenge, NIDA hopes to incentivize the development of innovative concepts for quality measurement and quality management systems based on the latest science of addiction and its treatment and of quality measurement and management. These new concepts would be game-changing because they would go beyond current performance measurement concepts in that they would not be limited by the data commonly available in current provider and payer data systems. Instead, they would (a) more directly reflect the clinical effects that can and should be expected from high-quality addiction treatment; (b) capture what clinicians and provider organizations need to measure to help them provide high-quality addiction treatment; and (c) provide a solid basis for measuring clinician and provider performance that may be used by patients and other purchasers to select and incent high-quality treatment. NIDA believes that the development of such quality measures and management systems has the potential to meaningfully improve the quality of addiction treatment both by giving clinicians and providers the information they need to assess and improve the quality of the care they provide and by providing tools patients and purchasers can use to shop for the highest quality providers, allowing market forces to provide another incentive for improvement.
Sarah Q. Duffy, Ph.D., Associate Director for Economics Research, Division of Epidemiology, Services and Prevention Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Phone: 301-443-6504 Email
Scientific knowledge about addiction and its treatment has increased markedly over the past several years. We have a better understanding of the effects of drugs on the brain. We also have new, more effective treatments. At the same time, new health care payment and delivery models are emerging that may provide opportunities to further enhance the quality of addiction treatment.
It has long been recognized that health care may be improved through the development and use of quality measures and management systems through which they can be collected, reported, monitored, and improved [Ref.1]. Quality measures are meant to reflect aspects of the care provided, or outcomes achieved that assess the health care quality. Health care quality has been defined as “the degree to which health care services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge” [Ref 2.]. In 2006 the Institute of Medicine recommended developing and implementing a quality
Controlling the growth of health care costs without adversely affecting care requires strong quality measures. Strong quality measures are those that can be directly improved by clinicians, treatment programs, and/or health care systems. Such quality measures either directly or indirectly (as proxy measures) measure aspects of patient functioning, health, or well-being, improvements in which are strongly and causally related to desired improvements in patient functioning, health or well-being. Strong quality measures may also be used by patients and payers to select high-quality providers thereby promoting change in the marketplace [Ref. 5].
Traditionally, three types of measures have been used to track aspects of treatment quality: Structural measures, process measures, and outcome measures [Ref. 6]. In the United States, quality measurement in addiction treatment largely has focused on process measures which measure the actual care provided, for example whether or not a patient received a certain medication, and outcome measures which measure how patients responded to treatment.
The most commonly used process measures in addiction treatment are the Washington Circle treatment initiation and engagement measures, both of which seek to measure the quality of initial care provided within health plans or treatment systems [Ref. 7]. Under the Washington Circle treatment initiation measure, the standard is met when a patient receives a treatment visit within 14 days of diagnosis, while the standard under the engagement measure is met when a patient has two or more visits within 30 days of that initial treatment visit. Some state substance abuse treatment agencies have used these measures to provide feedback to providers to aid their quality improvement efforts or incentivize improvements via performance-based contracting [Ref. 8]. Still, the most recent National Committee on Quality Assurance
Another commonly used process measure of addiction treatment quality—the length of stay in treatment—has likewise shown limited evidence of effectiveness [Ref. 10].
The most prominent outcome measure initiative is the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) National Outcome Measures (NOMs). The NOMs are based on administrative data that states are required to report to SAMHSA. They assess the extent of changes in measures such as drug use, homelessness, and employment between time of treatment admission and time of discharge. While measures of initial treatment attendance, length of stay in treatment, and changes in use and other outcomes between admission and discharge meet important needs, they are insufficient to assess key aspects of providers' contributions to the outcomes of care. Importantly, they do not signal to providers and systems what they need to do clinically to improve the quality of addiction treatment to the highest possible level. Specifically, they do not answer the following questions fundamental to informing providers how to improve the care they provide to patients, many of whom have a chronic, relapsing, disorder and may require multiple treatment episodes:
•
•
•
•
NIDA is seeking innovative, forward-looking concepts synthesizing the latest scientific findings from a broad array of relevant disciplines to address these questions.
This Challenge is consistent with and advances the mission of NIDA as described in 42 U.S.C. 285o. The general purpose of NIDA is to conduct and support biomedical and behavioral research and health services research, research training, and health information dissemination with respect to the prevention of drug abuse and the treatment of drug abusers. Consistent with this authority, one of NIDA's strategic goals is to support research to improve the quality of addiction treatment. Novel measures, conceptual models, and related research agendas that achieve the goals underlying this Challenge will rely on the latest science and help set priorities for future research and, accordingly, will support this strategic goal.
1. To be eligible to win a prize under this Challenge, an individual or entity:
a. Shall have registered to participate in the Challenge under the rules promulgated by NIDA and published in this Notice;
b. Shall have complied with all the requirements in this Notice;
c. In the case of a private entity, shall be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States, and in the case of an individual, whether participating singly or in a group, shall be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States. However, non-U.S. citizens and non-permanent residents can participate as a member of a team that otherwise satisfies the eligibility criteria. Non-U.S. citizens and non-permanent residents are not eligible to win a monetary prize (in whole or in part). Their participation as part of a winning team, if applicable, may be recognized when the results are announced.
d. In the case of an individual, whether participating singly or in a group, must be at least 18 years old at the time of entry;
e. May not be a Federal entity.
f. May not be a Federal employee acting within the scope of his/her employment, and further, in the case of HHS employees, may not work on their submission(s) during assigned duty hours;
g. May not be an employee of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a judge of the Challenge, or any other party involved with the design, production, execution, or distribution of the Challenge or the immediate family of such a party (
2. Federal grantees may not use Federal funds to develop their Challenge submissions unless use of such funds is consistent with the purpose of their grant award and specifically requested to do so due to the Challenge design.
3. Federal contractors may not use Federal funds from a contract to develop their Challenge submissions or to fund efforts in support of their Challenge submission.
4. Submissions must not infringe upon any copyright or any other rights of any third party. Each participant warrants that he or she is the sole author and owner of the work and that the work is wholly original.
5. By participating in this Challenge, each individual (whether competing singly or in a group) and entity agree to assume any and all risks and waive claims against the Federal Government and its related entities (as defined in the COMPETES Act), except in the case of willful misconduct, for any injury, death, damage, or loss of property, revenue, or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising from their participation in the Challenge, whether the injury, death, damage, or loss arises through negligence or otherwise.
6. Based on the subject matter of the Challenge, the type of work that it will possibly require, as well as an analysis of the likelihood of any claims for death, bodily injury, or property damage, or loss potentially resulting from Challenge participation, no individual (whether competing singly or in a group) or entity participating in the Challenge is required to obtain liability insurance or demonstrate financial responsibility in order to participate in this Challenge.
7. By participating in this Challenge, each individual (whether competing singly or in a group) or entity agrees to indemnify the Federal Government against third party claims for damages arising from or related to Challenge activities.
8. An individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible because the individual or entity used Federal facilities or consulted with Federal employees during the Challenge if the facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating in the Challenge on an equitable basis.
9. Each individual (whether competing singly or in a group) or entity retains title and full ownership in and to their submission and each participant expressly reserves all intellectual property rights (
10. The NIH reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to (a) cancel, suspend, or modify the Challenge, and/or (b) not award any prizes if no entries are deemed worthy.
11. Each individual (whether competing singly or in a group) or entity agrees to follow applicable local, State, and Federal laws and regulations.
12. Each individual (whether participating singly or in a group) and entity participating in this Challenge must comply with all terms and conditions of these rules, and participation in this Challenge constitutes each such participant's full and unconditional agreement to abide by these rules. Winning is contingent upon fulfilling all requirements herein.
Each submission for this Challenge should consist of a white paper describing a concept for an innovative quality measurement and management system to measure, manage, and improve the quality of clinical care in addiction treatment. The white paper must describe a novel concept based on the latest findings from relevant areas of science. It must include the following two sections:
1. A description of candidate clinical effects of addiction treatment and how these effects could be measured (directly or by proxy); a discussion of the likely level of these measures in the current treatment system, how much improvement might be achievable, how the measure(s) could conceivably be implemented, now or in the future, to improve the quality of care; how the resulting information could conceivably be used to help patients and payers select providers; and how the proposed measures and systems might be evaluated and improved once implemented.
2. A research agenda addressing the current state of relevant scientific knowledge; the gaps that need to be addressed to support the development, testing, and use of these novel concepts, measures, and systems; and a plan and an estimated timeframe for filling those gaps.
The white paper must not contain any information directly identifying the participants.
To register for this Challenge, participants must go to
All submissions must be in English. Each submission must consist of a PDF file, containing the white paper document. The PDF documents must be formatted to be no larger than 8.5” by 11.0”, with at least 1 inch margins. The white paper must be no more than 20 pages long. Font size must be no smaller than 11 point Arial. The participant must not use HHS's logo or official seal or the logo of NIH or NIDA in the submission, and must not claim federal government endorsement.
Up to four monetary prizes may be awarded: $35,000 for 1st Place, $30,000 for 2nd Place, $25,000 for 3rd Place, and $10,000 for Honorable Mention for a total prize award pool of up to $100,000. The names of the winners and the titles of their submissions will be posted on the NIDA Web site. In addition, NIDA may work with winners and a peer-reviewed journal to publish articles based on the white papers in a special issue on the future of quality measurement and management systems in the field of addiction treatment. The award approving official for this Challenge is the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Prizes awarded under this Challenge will be paid by electronic funds transfer and may be subject to Federal income taxes. The NIH will comply with the Internal Revenue Service withholding and reporting requirements, where applicable.
The judging panel will make recommendations to the Award Approving Official based upon the following five criteria and point allocation:
1. Novelty of the concept (5 points): Concepts are to move beyond the existing quality measurement and management paradigms and administrative data elements commonly used in the addiction treatment field. They are to focus on clinical effects that can be obtained as a direct result of treatment in the context of what is often a chronic, relapsing condition. How novel is the concept? Does it address important clinical effects that are not currently or adequately considered in existing quality measurement and improvement efforts in the addiction treatment field?
2. Clinical effectiveness of the concept (5 points): Are changes in the identified effects something that high-quality treatment could conceivably affect in a meaningful way? How effective would improvements in these clinical effects likely be in addressing addiction and improving other outcomes important to patients and other purchasers of care?
3. Scientific basis for the concept (5 points): Concepts must rely on the latest scientific understanding of addiction and its treatment from a broad range of fields, as well as the latest science of quality measurement and management. How meaningfully, comprehensively, and effectively does the concept incorporate these latest advances in areas of science relevant to addiction, its treatment, and quality improvement?
4. Quality of the conceptual model (5 points): How well is the conceptual framework or model developed? How well does it consider factors relevant to the ultimate success of the concept? How well does it address the clinical means for improving the candidate measures and potential unintended consequences of implementing the measures and using them to inform, gauge, and reward improvement? How well does it address the likely impact of improvements in these measures on the provider industry?
5. Potential for the concept to be implemented and evaluated (5 points): Concepts, and the measures and systems derived from them, must have the potential to be implemented and used in at least some types of treatment programs or other settings once all relevant research gaps have been addressed. Is it within the realm of possibility that these concepts, measures, or quality improvement systems could be implemented in at least some organizations once all of the research gaps have been addressed? How useful would the measures be to patients and payers making purchasing decisions? How reasonable is the plan for how the measures and systems could be evaluated and improved once implemented?
6. Quality of the research agenda (5 points): How well does the research agenda describe the gaps in the relevant areas of science that need to be addressed for this novel quality measurement and management concept to be achieved and implemented? Does the agenda describe a logical, feasible plan and timeframe for addressing those gaps?
Scores from each criterion will be weighted equally. The score for each submission will be the sum of the scores from each of the 5 voting judges, for a maximum of 150 points. NIH reserves the right to make an award to submissions scoring less than 150 points if NIH deems any sufficiently meritorious. All submissions will be held until after the deadline is reached for a simultaneous judging process. NIH reserves the right to disqualify and remove any submission that is deemed, in the judging panel's discretion, inappropriate, offensive, defamatory, or demeaning.
The evaluation process will begin by anonymizing and removing those that are not responsive to this Challenge or not in compliance with all rules of eligibility. Submissions that are responsive and in compliance may then undergo a review by NIH program staff with expertise in the relevant areas of science. These program staff would be asked to comment specifically on the soundness of the scientific basis for the project, the likelihood that any scientific advances needed for the concept to meet fruition are within the realm of possibility, and the quality of the research agenda, all as they relate to the program official's area of expertise. Judges will examine all responsive and compliant submissions, as well comments from program staff, if any, and score the entries in accordance with the judging criteria outlined above. Judges will meet to discuss the most meritorious submissions. Final recommendations will be determined by a vote of the judges.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Neuroendocrinology, Neuroimmunology, Rhythms and Sleep Study Section, February 05, 2015, 08:00 a.m. to February 06, 2015, 06:00 p.m., JW Marriott New Orleans, 614 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA, 70130 which was published in the
The meeting location has changed to the Renaissance New Orleans Pere Marquette Hotel, 817 Common Street, New Orleans, LA, 70112. The meeting date and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, DHS.
30-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension without change of a currently approved collection, 1601-0004.
The Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). DHS previously published this information collection request (ICR) in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until February 13, 2015. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to OMB Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security and sent via electronic mail to
The Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Ombudsman was created under section 452 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296) to: (1) Assist individuals and employers in resolving problems with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); (2) to identify areas in which individuals and employers have problems in dealing with USCIS; and (3) to the extent possible, propose changes in the administrative practices of USCIS to mitigate problems. This form is used by an applicant who is experiencing problems with USCIS during the processing of an immigration benefit.
The information collected on this form will allow the CIS Ombudsman to identify the problem such as: (1) A case problem which is a request for information about a case that was filed with USCIS (“case problem”); or (2) the identification of a systemic issue that may or may not pertain to an individual case which the individual, attorney or employer is seeking to bring to the attention of the CIS Ombudsman (“trend”). For case problems, the CIS Ombudsman will refer case specific issues to the Customer Assistance Office for USCIS for further research, and review.
For trends received, the CIS Ombudsman notes the systemic issue identified in the correspondence which may or may not be incorporated into future recommendations submitted to the Director of USCIS pursuant to section 452(d)(4) of Public Law 107-296.
The use of this form provides the most efficient means for collecting and processing the required data. The CIS Ombudsman is now employing the use of information technology in collecting and processing information by offering the option for electronic submission of the DHS Form 7001 through the Ombudsman Case Assistance Online System. Per PRA requirements, a fillable PDF version of the form is provided on the Ombudsman's Web site. The PDF form can be completed online, printed out and sent to the Ombudsman's office at the address indicated on the form. It is noted on the form that using the paper method can result in significant processing delays for the Ombudsman's office to provide the requested case assistance. After approval of the changes to form detailed in this supporting statement, the online form will be updated and posted on the Ombudsman's Web site at
The assurance of confidentiality provided to the respondents for this information collection is provided by: (a) The CIS Ombudsman statute and mandate as established by Homeland Security Act Section 452; (b) the Privacy Impact Assessment for the Office of the Citizenship & Immigration Services Ombudsman (CISOMB) Virtual Ombudsman System (March 19, 2010) and the (c) Systems of Records Notice: 9110-9B Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Secretary [Docket No. DHS-2009-0146] Privacy Act of 1974; Department of Homeland Security Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman—001 Online Ombudsman Form DHS-7001 System of Records. The DHS Privacy Office will receive the entire package of documents for this information collection to assure authorization for renewal of the collection.
The CISOMB Form DHS-7001 and the Online Ombudsman Form DHS-7001 system is constructed in compliance with all applicable DHS Privacy Office, DHS CIO, DHS Records Management, and OMB regulations regarding data collection, use, storage, and retrieval. The proposed public use data collection system is therefore intended to be distributed for public use primarily by electronic means with limited paper distribution and processing of paper forms.
The CISOMB Form DHS-7001 (PDF) and the Online Ombudsman Form DHS-7001 (Ombudsman Case Assistance Online System) has been constructed in compliance with regulations and authorities under the purview of the DHS Privacy Office, DHS CIO, DHS Records Management, and OMB regulations regarding data collection, use, sharing, storage, information security and retrieval of information.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security is giving notice that it proposes to renew the Department of Homeland Security system of records notice titled, “Department of Homeland Security Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman—001 Online Ombudsman Form DHS-7001 and Ombudsman Case Assistance Online System of Records.” This system of records will continue to ensure the efficient and secure processing of information to aid the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman in providing assistance to individuals, employers, and their representatives in resolving problems with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; identify areas in which individuals, employers, and their representatives have problems working with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; and to the extent possible, propose changes to mitigate problems pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 272. This system will continue to be included in the Department of Homeland Security's inventory of record systems.
There has been an increase of 6,200 in the estimated annual burden hours previously reported for this information collection. The increase in burden hours is a reflection of agency estimates. There is no change in the information being collected, however there have been cosmetic changes to the form including punctuation, formatting, sequencing of information, and text changes to make the form more understandable and streamlined for use by respondents. The number of response fields has been reduced from 13 to 12 and arranged in a way that streamlines completion, submission and processing of the form.
The title of the form has changed from “Case Problem Submission Worksheet (CIS Ombudsman Form DHS-7001)” to “Case Assistance Form (Ombudsman Form DHS-7001)”. The name of the system has changed from “Virtual Ombudsman System” to “Ombudsman Case Assistance Online”. The following narrative explains the changes made on the form and the corresponding instructions:
The Original 7001 form had the sections arranged in the following order:
1—Name: Please identify the individual or employer encountering difficulties with USCIS (applicant/beneficiary/petitioner).
2—Contact Information: Please provide information on the individual or employer encountering difficulties with USCIS (applicant/beneficiary/petitioner).
3—Date of Birth.
4—Country of Birth and Citizenship.
5—Alien Registration Number (A-Number); The A-number appears in the following format: A123-456-789.
6—Person Preparing This Form: Please indicate who is completing this form.
7—Applications/Petitions Filed: List all applications and/or petitions pending with USCIS related to your case inquiry.
8—Type of Immigration Benefit: Please provide the type of immigration benefit sought from USCIS.
9—Reason for Inquiry: Please indicate if any of the options apply. Provide a description in section 10.
10—Description: Describe the difficulties experienced with USCIS. Attach additional pages if needed.
11—Prior Actions Taken: Check all that apply: Please describe the response USCIS provided and attach any relevant correspondence.
12—Consent: If you are the beneficiary of an immigration petition, consent of the individual who submitted the petition on your behalf is required. The petitioner must sign.
13—Attorney or Accredited Representative: Please complete this section if you are an attorney, a representative of an organization, an accredited representative, or anyone else preparing this form on behalf of the individual or employer encountering difficulties with USCIS.
The Amended 7001 has the sections arranged in the following order:
1. Name: Please identify the name of the individual or employer (applicant/beneficiary/petitioner) encountering or difficulties with USCIS. Do not enter the attorney/law firm's name here.
2. Date of Birth: Country of Birth: Country of Citizenship:
3. Alien Registration Number (A-Number); The A-number appears in the following format: A123-456-789.
4. Contact Information: Please provide the contact information of the individual or employer (applicant/beneficiary/petitioner) encountering difficulties with USCIS. Please include the primary E-Mail address for the Ombudsman to provide updates.
5. Applications/Petitions Filed: List all applications and/or petitions pending with USCIS related to your case inquiry.
6. Type of Immigration Benefit Sought: Please provide the type of immigration benefit sought from USCIS.
7. Reason for Inquiry/Case Assistance Request: Check all that apply. Provide a description in section 8 and add documentation related to your inquiry.
8. Description of your Case Problem: Describe the difficulties experienced with USCIS including all responses USCIS provided. Attach relevant correspondence concerning actions taken to resolve the issue before submitting with the Ombudsman's Office including: Receipt notices; requests for evidence; decisions; notices and any other correspondence from USCIS about your case. Attach additional pages if needed.
9. Prior Actions Taken to Remedy the Problem: Check all that apply and provide the additional information requested for each selection in the space provided. Note that if selecting Option a “Visited USCIS My Case Status at
a. Visited USCIS My Case Status at
b. Contacted the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) for information and/or assistance regarding this case at their toll-free number 1-800-375-5283. Provide SRMT Number:
c. Attended an InfoPass Appointment with USCIS.
Provide InfoPass Number:
d. Sent an Email to USCIS. Provide date email sent: Provide USCIS Email address:
e. Contacted a U.S. Government Department or Agency for assistance. Provide name and contact information:
f. Contacted a U.S. Congressional Representative for assistance. Provide name and contact information:
g. Other. Please describe.
10. Person Preparing This Form: Please indicate who is completing this form.
11. Attorney or Accredited Representative: Please complete this section if you are an attorney, a representative of an organization, an accredited representative, or anyone else preparing this form on behalf of the individual or employer encountering difficulties with USCIS. Please attach copy of your Form G-28
12. Consent: Please note that if you are the beneficiary of an immigration petition, consent of the individual or employer that submitted the petition on your behalf is required. The petitioner must sign.
The instructions have been updated to reflect the electronic submission options as detailed in the previous paragraphs.
Instructions for electronic submission will be posted on the CIS Ombudsman Web site at
There is no change in the terms of clearance from the previously approved collection have been addressed by updates to the: (a) Privacy Impact Assessment for the Office of the Citizenship & Immigration Services Ombudsman (CISOMB) Virtual Ombudsman System (March 19, 2010); and the (b) Systems of Records Notice: 9110-9B Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Secretary [Docket No. DHS-2009-0146] Privacy Act of 1974; Department of Homeland Security Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman—001 Virtual Ombudsman System (March 2010) to reflect the name change to Online Ombudsman Form DHS-7001 System of Records.
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
Notice of renewal of the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council Charter.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the establishment of the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC) in a
Renee Murphy, Designated Federal Officer, Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council, Sector Outreach and Programs Division, Office of Infrastructure Protection, National Protection and Programs Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0607, Arlington, VA 20598-0607; telephone: (703) 603-5083; email:
(i) Critical Infrastructure (CI) owner and operator members of a DHS-recognized Sector SCC, including their representative trade associations or equivalent organization members of an SCC as determined by the SCC.
(ii) Federal, State, local, and tribal governmental entities comprising the members of the GCC for each sector, including their representative organizations; members of the State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Government Coordinating Council; and representatives of other Federal agencies with responsibility for CI activities.
CIPAC membership is organizational. Multiple individuals may participate in CIPAC activities on behalf of a member organization.
In notice document 2015-00031 beginning on page 893 in the issue of Wednesday, January 7, make the following correction:
On page 893, in the third column, in the 7th line, “March 9, 2015March 9, 2015” should read “March 9, 2015”.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner.
Notice.
Through this notice, FHA solicits comment from interested members of the public on HUD's proposed Management and Occupancy Review (MOR) schedule for the seven project-based Section 8 programs administered by the Office of Multifamily Housing. This proposed schedule will reduce the frequency of unnecessary MORs, thereby minimizing interruptions in property operations created by onsite reviews, preserving staff time, and reducing costs. The proposed schedule ties the project's annual MOR rating with HUD's new
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.
1.
2.
To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule.
For information about management and occupancy reviews contact Lauryn Alleva, Program Administration Office, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-7000; telephone number 202-708-3730 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access these numbers through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) authorizes one of HUD's primary programs for providing rental housing assistance (Section 8). The purpose of Section 8 is to provide low-income families with decent, safe, and sanitary rental housing. There are seven project-based Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) programs administered by the Office of Multifamily Housing: the HAP program for New Construction (24 CFR part 880) and the HAP program for Substantial Rehabilitation (24 CFR part 881), which provide rental assistance in connection with the development of newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated privately owned rental housing; the HAP Program for State Housing Agencies (24 CFR part 883); the HAP program for New Construction financed under Section 515 of the Housing Act of 1949 (24 CFR part 884), which applies to U.S. Department of Agriculture rural rental housing projects; the Loan Management Set Aside Program (24 CFR part 886, subpart A), which provides rental subsidies to HUD-insured or HUD-held multifamily properties experiencing immediate or potential financial difficulties; the Housing Assistance Program for the Disposition of HUD-Owned Projects (24 CFR part 886, subpart C), which provides Section 8 assistance in connection with the sale of HUD-owned multifamily rental housing projects and the foreclosure of HUD-held mortgages on rental housing projects; and the Section 202/8 Program (24 CFR part 891, subpart E), which provides assistance for housing projects serving elderly or families and individuals with disabilities.
Under the Section 8 project-based program, HUD may enter into an annual contributions contract (ACC) with a public housing agency (PHA) through which HUD commits to provide the agency with funds to make housing assistance payments to a project owner. The PHA, acting as a contract administrator, then enters into a HAP contract with the owner. In certain circumstances HUD may act as the contract administrator, whereby HUD will directly enter into a HAP contract with an owner.
Contract administrators in the above-listed Section 8 programs are responsible for assessing the management and oversight of housing projects and for ensuring that owners comply with the requirements of the HAP contract. To assess an owner's compliance with the terms and conditions of its HAP contract, contract administrators are required under the terms of their ACCs to conduct MORs. Completion of MORs can require Contract administrators to visit the site and can cause interruption in project operations. The Contract administrator spends approximately 8 hours of staff time and additional resources to review every project. HUD has found that over the last three years projects have been rated “Above Average” or “Superior” 35 percent of the time, “Satisfactory” 57 percent of the time, and “Below Average” or “Unsatisfactory” eight percent of the time. A full or limited review of all projects, including those that consistently receive high ratings, puts a strain on HUD and project resources.
A proposed rule found elsewhere in today's
This notice proposes to require MORs of projects on a schedule that is based on both the project's annual MOR rating and HUD's risk-based asset management model. The purpose of the MOR is to establish the quality of management at HUD subsidized projects, and to verify the project's compliance with the terms of the HAP Contract, any HUD
The proposed Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program MOR schedule will use this new risk-based classification in combination with the previous MOR score to determine the future schedule of MORs for all Section 8 projects in the Office of Multifamily Housing's portfolio. HUD has found that when a project is performing well, risk of failure is lower. Additionally, the Office of Multifamily Housing has found that many of the properties receiving assistance under its Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments program receive high marks on the MOR annually indicating that conducting MORs annually is not necessary to mitigate risk at these properties. Using this new MORs schedule, HUD may focus staff and resources on projects that warrant greater attention.
The schedule will be as follows: (1) Projects with a
This notice does not restrict HUD or the Contract Administrator from conducting additional MORs outside of this schedule pursuant to existing and future administrative guidelines.
The information collection requirements for this notice has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2502-0178. The collection requirement will be amended to reflect this notice's reduced burden. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This notice would amend the frequency of the Management and Occupancy Review (MOR) schedule for the seven project-based Section 8 programs listed-above. The collection title is, “Management Reviews of Multifamily Housing Programs” and the current burden is 8 hours for each of the 24,366 annual reviews, 194,928 total burden hours. This notice is estimated to reduce the burden in the existing information collection requirement as follows:
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), HUD is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning this collection of information to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information.
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding the information collection requirements in this rule. Comments must refer to the proposed rule by name and docket
Interested persons may submit comments regarding the information collection requirements electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
This notice provides operating instructions and procedures in connection with activities under provisions of Section 8 project-based assistance program regulations that have been the subject of a required environmental review. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(4), this notice is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Office of Natural Resource Revenue, Interior.
Meetings.
This notice announces the next four meetings of the United States Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (USEITI) Multi-Stakeholder Group (MSG) Advisory Committee.
The meetings will be held in the North and South Penthouse of the Stewart Lee Udall Department of the Interior Building located at 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240. Members of the public may attend in person or view documents and presentations under discussion via WebEx at
Rosita Compton Christian, USEITI Secretariat; 1849 C Street NW., MS 4211; Washington, DC 20240. You may also contact the USEITI Secretariat via email at
The U.S. Department of the Interior established the USEITI Advisory Committee (Committee) on July 26, 2012, to serve as the USEITI multi-stakeholder group. More information about the Committee, including its charter, is available at
Whenever possible, we encourage those participating by telephone to gather in conference rooms in order to share teleconference lines. Please plan to dial into the meeting and/or log into WebEx at least 10-15 minutes prior to the scheduled start time in order to avoid possible technical difficulties. We will accommodate individuals with special needs whenever possible. If you require special assistance (such as an interpreter for the hearing impaired), please notify Interior staff in advance of the meeting at 202-208-0272 or via email at
We will post the minutes from these proceedings on the USEITI MSG Web site at
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability and request for public comment.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the technical/agency draft recovery plan for the endangered laurel dace, a small fish native to the Tennessee River Basin in Tennessee. The draft recovery plan includes specific recovery objectives and criteria to be met in order for us to downlist the species to threatened status or delist it under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We request review and comment on this
In order to be considered, comments on the draft recovery plan must be received on or before March 16, 2015.
If you wish to review this technical/agency draft recovery plan, you may obtain a copy by contacting Geoff Call, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Field Office, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38501; tel. (931) 525-4983, or by visiting either the Service's recovery plan Web site at
1. You may submit written comments and materials to Geoff Call, at the above address.
2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Tennessee Field Office, at the above address.
3. You may send comments by email to
For additional information about submitting comments, see the “Request for Public Comments” section below.
Geoff Call (see
We listed the laurel dace (
Historically, laurel dace is known from seven streams, and it currently occupies six of these, persisting in three creek systems on the Walden Ridge of the Cumberland Plateau. Only a few individuals have been collected from headwaters of the two creek systems in the southern part of their range, Soddy and Sale Creeks, although laurel dace are more abundant in headwaters of the Piney River system in their northern range. Threats to the laurel dace include: Land use activities that affect silt levels, temperature, or hydrologic processes of these small tributaries; invasive species, including sunfishes, basses, and hemlock woolly adelgid; the species' naturally small population size and geographic range; and climate change.
Restoring an endangered or threatened animal or plant to the point where it is again a secure, self-sustaining member of its ecosystem is a primary goal of our endangered species program. To help guide the recovery effort, we prepare recovery plans for most listed species. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for conservation of the species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting, and estimate time and cost for implementing recovery measures.
The Act requires the development of recovery plans for listed species, unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species. Section 4(f) of the Act requires us to provide a public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment during recovery plan development. We will consider all information we receive during a public comment period prior to approval of each new or revised recovery plan. We and other Federal agencies will take these comments into account in the course of implementing approved recovery plans.
The goal for this recovery plan is to conserve and recover populations of laurel dace to the point that listing under the Act is no longer necessary, which will require the following objectives to be accomplished. Because recovery and delisting will be a long and potentially unachievable goal, an intermediate goal for this recovery plan is to recover the species to the point that it could be reclassified from endangered to threatened.
In order to recover laurel dace to the point that listing under the Act is no longer necessary, it will be necessary to conserve all existing populations by maintaining, and in some cases restoring, suitable habitat conditions in all streams where the species currently occurs. It will also be necessary to discover or establish one additional population.
Reclassification to threatened status will be possible when habitat conditions in occupied streams are suitable for the conservation of the species, and viable populations are present throughout suitable habitat in five of the six currently occupied streams.
The following criteria will be used to determine whether the objectives for reclassification and delisting described above have been met. The criteria will be achieved by reducing or removing threats to the species' habitat and conserving or establishing viable populations throughout the species' range, as determined by monitoring of demographic and genetic parameters.
* Viability: Populations will be considered viable when the following demographic and genetic conditions exist:
• Demographics—Monitoring data demonstrate that (a) populations are stable or increasing, (b) two or more age-classes are consistently present over a period of time encompassing five generations (
• Genetics—Populations will be considered to have sufficient genetic variation to be viable if measurements of observed number of alleles and estimates of heterozygosity and effective population size have remained stable or increased during the five generations used to establish demographic viability.
We request written comments on the draft recovery plan. We will consider all comments we receive by the date specified in
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.
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).
Bureau of Indian Education, Interior.
Notice of Request for Nominations.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act—Public Law 92-463, 5 United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10 (a) (b); and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA), (20 U.S.C. 1400
Please submit nominations by February 20, 2015.
Please submit nominations to Ms. Sue Bement, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Bureau of Indian Education, Division of Performance and Accountability, 1011 Indian School Road NW., Suite 332, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104, Telephone (505) 563-5274, or Fax to (505) 563-5281.
Ms. Sue Bement, DFO, at the address and telephone number listed above.
The Advisory Board was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463. The following provides information about the Committee, the membership and the nomination process.
(a) Members of the Advisory Board will provide guidance, advice and recommendations with respect to special education and related services for children with disabilities in BIE-funded schools in accordance with the requirements of IDEA;
(b) The Advisory Board will:
(1) Provide advice and recommendations for the coordination of services within the BIE and with other local, State and Federal agencies;
(2) Provide advice and recommendations on a broad range of policy issues dealing with the provision of educational services to American Indian children with disabilities;
(3) Serve as advocates for American Indian students with special education needs by providing advice and recommendations regarding best practices, effective program coordination strategies, and recommendations for improved educational programming;
(4) Provide advice and recommendations for the preparation of information required to be submitted to the Secretary of Education under 20 U.S.C. 1411 (h)(2);
(5) Provide advice and recommend policies concerning effective inter- and intra- agency collaboration, including modifications to regulations, and the elimination of barriers to inter- and intra- agency programs and activities; and
(6) Will report and direct all correspondence to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs through the Director, BIE with a courtesy copy to the DFO.
(a) Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(6), the Advisory Board will be composed of up to 15 individuals involved in or concerned with the education and provision of services to Indian infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. The Advisory Board composition will reflect a broad range of viewpoints and will include at least one member representing each of the following interests: Indians with disabilities; teachers of children with disabilities; Indian parents or guardians of children with disabilities; service providers; state education officials; local education officials; state interagency coordinating councils (for states having Indian reservations); tribal representatives or tribal organization representatives; and other members representing the various divisions and entities of BIE.
(b) The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs may provide the Secretary of the Interior recommendations for the chairperson; however, the chairperson and other Advisory Board members will be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Advisory Board members shall serve staggered terms of two years or three years from the date of their appointment.
(a) Members of the Advisory Board will not receive compensation, but will be reimbursed for travel, including subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in Government Service under 5 U.S.C. 5703.
(b) A member may not participate in matters that will directly affect, or appear to affect, the financial interests of the member or the member's spouse or minor children, unless authorized by the appropriate ethics official. Compensation from employment does not constitute a financial interest of the member so long as the matter before the committee will not have a special or distinct effect on the member or the member's employer, other than as part of a class. The provisions of this paragraph do not affect any other statutory or regulatory ethical obligations to which a member may be subject.
(c) The Advisory Board meets at least twice a year, budget permitting. Additional meetings may be held as deemed necessary by the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs or the DFO.
(d) All Committee meetings are open to the public in accordance with the
(a) Nominations are requested from individuals, organizations, and federally recognized tribes, as well as from State Directors of Special Education (within the 23 states in which BIE-funded schools are located) concerned with the education of Indian children with disabilities as described above.
(b) Nominees should have expertise and knowledge of the issues and/or needs of American Indian children with disabilities. Such knowledge and expertise are needed to provide advice and recommendations to BIE regarding the needs of American Indian children with disabilities.
(c) A summary of the candidates' qualifications (resume or curriculum vitae) must be included with the nomination application. Nominees must have the ability to attend Advisory Board meetings, carry out Advisory Board assignments, participate in teleconference calls, and work in groups.
(d) The Department of the Interior is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks diverse Committee membership, which is bound by Indian Preference Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 472).
If you wish to nominate someone for appointment to the Advisory Board, please do not make the nomination until the person has agreed to have his or her name submitted to the BIE for this purpose.
Please fill out this form completely and include a copy of the nominee's resume or curriculum vitae.
This collection of information is authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0179, “Solicitation of Nominations for the Advisory Board for Exceptional Children.
A. Nominations are requested from individuals, organizations, and federally-recognized tribes, as well as from State Directors of Special Education (within the 23 states in which BIE-funded schools are located) concerned with the education of Indian children with disabilities as described above.
B. Nominees should have expertise and knowledge of the issues and/or needs of American Indian children with disabilities. Such knowledge and expertise are needed to provide advice and recommendations to BIE regarding the needs of American Indian children with disabilities.
C. A summary of the candidate's qualifications (
D. The Department of the Interior is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks diverse Committee membership; however, the Department is bound by the Indian Preference Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 472).
A. The Advisory Board provides guidance, advice, and recommendations with respect to special education and related services for children with disabilities in BIE-funded schools in accordance with the requirements of IDEA.
B. The Advisory Board provides advice and recommendations for the coordination of services within BIE and with other local, State and Federal agencies.
C. The Advisory Board provides advice and recommendations on a broad range of policy issues dealing with the provision of educational services to American Indian children with disabilities.
D. The Advisory Board serves as an advocate for American Indian students with special education needs by providing advice and recommendations regarding best practices, effective program coordination strategies, and recommendations for improved educational programming.
E. The Advisory Board provides advice and recommendations for the preparation of information required to be submitted to the Secretary of Education.
F. The Advisory Board provides advice and recommends policies concerning effective inter- and intra-agency collaboration, including modifications to regulations, and the elimination of barriers to inter and intra-agency programs and activities.
G. The Advisory Board reports and directs all correspondence to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs through the Director of the Bureau of Indian Education with a courtesy copy to the DFO.
A. The Advisory Board shall be composed of 15 members. The Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs may provide the Secretary of the Interior recommendations for the Chairperson. However, all Advisory Board members will be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior as required. Advisory Board members shall serve staggered terms of two years or three years from the date of their appointment. The Secretary may remove members from the Advisory Board at any time at his/her discretion.
B. As required by IDEA, the Advisory Board will be composed of individuals involved in or concerned with the education and provision of services to Indian children with disabilities. The Advisory Board composition will reflect a broad range of viewpoints and will include at least one (1) member representing each of the following interests: Indian persons with disabilities; teachers of children with disabilities; Indian parents or guardians of children with disabilities; service providers; State education officials; local education officials; State interagency coordinating councils (for states having Indian reservations); tribal representatives or tribal organization representatives; and, BIE employees concerned with the education of children with disabilities.
C. Members of the Advisory Board will not receive compensation, but will be reimbursed for travel, including subsistence and other necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties consistent with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5703.
D. A member may not participate in matters that will directly affect, or appear to affect, the financial interests of the member or the member's spouse or minor children, unless authorized by the DFO. Compensation from employment does not constitute a financial interest of the member so long as the matter before the committee will not have a special or distinct effect on the member or the member's employer, other than as part of a class. The provisions of this paragraph do not affect any other statutory or regulatory ethical obligations to which a member may be subject.
E. The Advisory Board meets at least twice a year, budget permitting. Additional meetings may be held as deemed necessary by the Assistant Secretary or the DFO.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management's Eastern States Office will move to a new location and close access to its Public Room from January 14, 2015 to January 23, 2015. Some services and limited access to records will be available at the new location from January 26, 2015 through March 2, 2015. Updates regarding records access will be posted on the Eastern States Web site at
The relocation will occur on January 15, 2015.
The new office location is 20 M Street SE., Washington, DC 20003.
Monique McDonald-Harris, Deputy State Director for Business Resources, (202) 912-7750; email to:
Mail sent via the U.S. Postal Service addressed to the BLM Eastern States office's old address, 7450 Boston Blvd., Springfield, Virginia, will be forwarded to 20 M Street SE., Washington, DC 20003.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of filing of plats of surveys.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has officially filed the plats of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho, effective 9:00 a.m., on the dates specified.
Bureau of Land Management, 1387 South Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho, 83709-1657.
This survey were executed at the request of the Bureau of Land Management to meet their administrative needs. The lands surveyed are:
The supplemental plat was prepared to show new tracts 38-46, in unsurveyed section 11, T. 48 N., R. 2 E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1411, was accepted December 29, 2014.
This survey was executed at the request of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service to meet their administrative needs. The lands surveyed are:
The plat represents the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of sections 9, 15, 16, 22, 23, and 26, and metes-and-bounds surveys in sections 9, 16, and 26, Township 4 North, Range 25 East, Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1395, was accepted November 25, 2014.
These surveys were executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to meet certain administrative and management purposes. The lands surveyed are:
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the north boundary, subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of sections 2 and 3, and a survey of the 2012-2013 meanders of the full-pool line of the Portneuf Reservoir in section 2 and 3, Township 6 South, Range 38 East, of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1383, was accepted November 19, 2014.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the north boundary, subdivisional lines, and subdivision of section 4, Township 32 North, Range 1 East, of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1401, was accepted December 10, 2014.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 days from the date of this publication.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment.
Kyle Hensley, (503) 808-6132, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message
A person or party who wishes to protest against this survey must file a written notice with the Oregon State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest. A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Oregon State Director within thirty days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. 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.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to inform the public and interested State and local government officials of the filing of Plats of Survey in Nevada.
Michael O. Harmening, Chief, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502-7147, phone: 775-861-6490. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
1. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on October 14, 2014:
The plat, in 1 sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of the east boundary, a portion of the west boundary, the north boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 26 North, Range 49 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 919, was accepted October 10, 2014. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.
2. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the BLM Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on December 19, 2014:
The plat, in 2 sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, and a metes-and-bounds survey in section 13, Township 15 North, Range 64 East, of the Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 927, was accepted December 17, 2014. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.
3. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the BLM Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on December 19, 2014:
The plat, in 4 sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of the Third Standard Parallel North through a portion of Range 65 East, a portion of the west boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the corrective dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, the subdivision of section 7, and metes-and-bounds surveys in sections 3, 7 and 18, Township 15 North, Range 65 East, of the Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 927, was accepted December 17, 2014. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.
4. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the BLM Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on November 7, 2014:
The plat, in 6 sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south and west boundaries, a portion of the subdivisional lines and a portion of the subdivision of section 18, and a metes-and-bounds survey of a line 30 feet easterly and parallel with the apparent centerline of a portion of Cave Valley road, through sections 18, 19, 30 and 31, and a metes-and-bounds survey of a line 30 feet southerly and parallel with the apparent centerline of an unimproved dirt road and a portion of the westerly right-of-way line of Highway Nos. 6, 50 and 93, through a portion of section 34, Township 15 North, Range 64 East, of the Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 928, was accepted October 31, 2014. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management to affect the transfer of Federal Lands to the State of Nevada, as directed by Public Law 109-432.
5. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the BLM Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on November 7, 2014:
The plat, in 1 sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of the First Standard Parallel North through a portion of Range 40 East, as portion of the subdivisional lines and a portion of Mineral Survey No. 4414, Township 6 North, Range 40 East, of the Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 932, was accepted November 5, 2014. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.
The surveys listed above are now the basic record for describing the lands for all authorized purposes. These records have been placed in the open files in the BLM Nevada State Office and are available to the public as a matter of information. Copies of the surveys and related field notes may be furnished to the public upon payment of the appropriate fees.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the current list of 566 tribal entities
Laurel Iron Cloud, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Tribal Government Services, Mail Stop 4513-MIB, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240. Telephone number: (202) 513-7641.
This notice is published pursuant to Section 104 of the Act of November 2, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-454; 108 Stat. 4791, 4792), and in exercise of authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs under 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9 and 209 DM 8.
Published below is a list of federally acknowledged tribes in the contiguous 48 states and Alaska.
Amendments to the list include name changes and name corrections. To aid in identifying tribal name changes and corrections, the tribe's previously listed or former name is included in parentheses after the correct current tribal name. We will continue to list the tribe's former or previously listed name for several years before dropping the former or previously listed name from the list.
The listed Indian entities are acknowledged to have the immunities and privileges available to federally recognized Indian tribes by virtue of their government-to-government relationship with the United States as well as the responsibilities, powers, limitations and obligations of such tribes. We have continued the practice of listing the Alaska Native entities separately solely for the purpose of facilitating identification of them and reference to them given the large number of complex Native names.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The United States Forest Service (USFS) has filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requesting that the Secretary of the Interior extend the duration of the withdrawal created by Public Land Order (PLO) No. 7179 for an additional 20-year term. PLO No. 7179 withdrew 45 acres of National Forest System land from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, to protect the seismic integrity of the University of California—Berkeley Seismic Observatory located in Siskiyou County, California. The withdrawal created by PLO No. 7179 will expire on January 24, 2016, unless extended. This notice provides an opportunity to comment on the withdrawal extension application and to request a public meeting.
Comments and requests for a public meeting must be received by April 14, 2015.
Comments and requests for a public meeting must be sent to the California State Director, Bureau of Land Management, 2800 Cottage Way, W-1928, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Elizabeth Easley, BLM California State Office, 916-978-4673 or David Betz, Klamath National Forest Headquarters, 530-842-6131, during regular business hours: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The USFS has filed an application requesting that the Secretary of the Interior extend PLO No. 7179 (61 FR 2137, January 25, 1996), which withdrew 45 acres of land in the Klamath National Forest, Siskiyou County, California, from location and entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2), but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, for an additional 20-year term, subject to valid existing rights. PLO No. 7179 is incorporated herein by reference.
The purpose of the withdrawal is to protect the seismic integrity of a University of California—Berkeley Seismic Observatory.
The use of a right-of-way, interagency agreement, or cooperative agreement would not adequately constrain non-discretionary uses and would not provide adequate protection for the improvements located on the lands.
There are no suitable alternative sites with equal or greater benefit to the government.
No water rights are required to fulfill the purpose of the requested withdrawal extension.
Records relating to the application may be examined by contacting the BLM-California State Office, Public Room at the above address.
For a period until April 14, 2015, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal extension may present their views in writing to the BLM California State Office at the address listed above. 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. If you are submitting comments as an individual you may request confidentiality by asking us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Notice is also hereby given that the opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with the withdrawal extension application. All interested parties who desire a public meeting on the withdrawal extension application must submit a written request to BLM California State Office at the address listed above by April 14, 2015. If it is determined that a public meeting will be held, a notice will be published to announce the time and place in the
This withdrawal extension proposal will be processed in accordance with the applicable regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2310.4.
43 CFR 2310.3-1.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to offer by competitive sale, a 38.02-acre parcel of public land in White Pine County, NV, at no less than the appraised fair market value (FMV) of $135,000. The sale will be subject to the applicable provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, and applicable BLM land sale regulations.
Interested parties may submit written comments to the BLM at the address below. The BLM must receive your comments on or before March 2, 2015. The oral auction will be held on April 1, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., Pacific Standard Time at the Ely District Office, 702 North Industrial Way, Ely, NV 89301.
Send written comments concerning the proposed sale to the BLM Ely District Office, HC 33 Box
Paul Podborny, Schell Field Manager, at Ely District Office, 702 N. Industrial Way, Ely, NV 89301, or by telephone at 775-289-1800, or by email at
The BLM will conduct a competitive sale for a 38.02-acre parcel of public land located approximately one-quarter mile northwest of Ely, NV, in White Pine County NV.
The area described contains 38.02 acres.
This tract of public land has been identified for disposal by the BLM in the Ely District Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (ROD/RMP), dated August 20, 2008, as referenced in the Lands and Realty objectives LR-11, page 67, and Appendix B, page B-4. Disposal of the Parcel with be conducted consistent with Section 203 of FLPMA and Public Law 109-432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Title III—White Pine County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act (WPCCRDA), enacted on December 20, 2006. This parcel is among the 45,000 acres chosen for disposal in accordance with Public Law 109-432. The parcel is not required for any other Federal purposes, and its disposal would be in the public interest and meets the intent of the WPCCRDA.
The use of the competitive, oral-bid sale method is consistent with 43 CFR 2710.0-6. Under that provision, public land is being offered for sale utilizing competitive bidding procedures when the authorized officer determines there would be a number of interested parties bidding for the lands and lands are within a developing or urbanizing area and land values are increasing due to their location and interest on the competitive market. Competitive sale procedures: In accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1, oral bids may be made by a principal or a duly qualified agent. The highest qualifying oral bid received shall be publicly declared by the authorized officer. The person declared to have entered the highest qualifying bid shall submit payment by certified check, U.S. postal money order, bank draft or cashier's check made payable to the Department of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management for the amount not less than 20 percent of the amount of the bid immediately following the close of the sale. The successful bidder shall submit the full bid price prior to the expiration of 180 days from the date of the sale. Failure to submit the full bid price within the allotted time, shall result in cancellation of the sale of the specific parcel and the deposit shall be forfeited and disposed of as other receipts of sale. In the event the authorized officer rejects the highest qualified bid or releases the bidder from it, the authorized officer shall determine whether the public lands shall be withdrawn from the market or be reoffered.
The acceptance or rejection of any offer to purchase shall be in writing no later than 30 days after receipt of such offer unless the officer waives his right to a decision within such 30-day period.
Until the acceptance of the offer and payment of the purchase price, the bidder has no contractual or other rights against the United States, and no action taken shall create any contractual or other obligations of the United States.
The WPCCRDA (P.L. 109-432), section 311(h)(1), provides that Federal land described in subsection (a) of that Act is withdrawn from all forms of entry and appropriation under the public land laws and mining laws; all minerals will be retained by the Federal Government. A Mineral Potential Report was completed on June 7, 2013.
Upon publication of this Notice in the
Any conveyance document issued would be subject to the following terms, conditions, and reservations:
1. A reservation for any right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by authority of the United States under the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945);
2. All minerals, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe shall be reserved to the United States;
3. The parcel will be subject to all valid existing rights, including ROW N-55259 for an access road granted to Tom and Margaret Bath; and N-17924 for an overhead power line granted to Mt. Wheeler Power, their successors or assigns pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761);
4. By accepting this patent, the patentees agree to indemnify, defend, and hold the United States harmless from any costs, damages, claims, causes of action, penalties, fines, liabilities, and judgments of any kind or nature arising from the past, present, and future acts or omissions of the patentee, its employees, agents, contractors, or lessees, or any third-party, arising out of or in connection with the patentee's use, occupancy, or operations on the patented real property. This indemnification and hold harmless agreement includes, but is not limited to, acts and omissions of the patentee, its employees, agents, contractors, or lessees, or any third party, arising out of or in connection with the use and/or occupancy of the patented real property resulting in: (a) Violations of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations applicable to the real property; (b) Judgments, claims or demands of any kind assessed against the United States; (c) Costs, expenses, or damages of any kind incurred by the United States; (d) Releases or threatened releases of solid or hazardous waste(s) and/or hazardous substance(s), as defined by Federal or State environmental laws, off, on, into or under land, property and other interests of the United States; (e) Activities by which solid waste or hazardous substances or waste, as defined by Federal and State environmental laws are generated, released, stored, used or otherwise disposed of on the patented real property, and any cleanup response, remedial action or other actions related in any manner to said solid or hazardous substances or wastes; or (f) Natural resource damages as defined by Federal and State law. This covenant
5. Pursuant to the requirements established by section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, U.S.C. 9620(h), notice is hereby given that the described lands have been examined and no evidence was found to indicate that any hazardous substances have been stored for 1 year or more; and
6. No warranty of any kind, express or implied, is given by the United States, its officers or employees, as to title, access to or from the above described parcel of land, whether or to what extent the land may be developed, its physical condition, or past, present or future use, or any other circumstances or condition. The conveyance of any such parcel will not be on a contingency basis.
Information concerning the sale, appraisals, reservations, sale procedures and conditions, maps, other environmental documents, and mineral report are available for review during business hours, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Pacific Time (PT), Monday through Friday, at the Ely District Office, except during federally recognized holidays.
The parcel is subject to limitations prescribed by law and regulation, and prior to patent issuance, a holder of any ROW within the parcel will have the opportunity to amend the ROW for conversion to a new term, including perpetuity, if applicable, or to an easement. The BLM will notify valid existing ROW holders of their ability to convert their compliant ROW to perpetual ROW or easements. Each valid holder will be notified in writing of their rights and then must apply for the conversion of their current authorization.
Unless other satisfactory arrangements are approved in advance by a BLM authorized officer, conveyance of title shall be through escrow. Designation of the escrow agent shall be through mutual agreement between the BLM and the prospective patentee, and costs of escrow shall be borne by the prospective patentee.
The Ely District Office must receive request for escrow instructions prior to 30 days before the scheduled closing date. There are no exceptions.
All name changes and supporting documentation must be received at the Ely District Office 30 days from the date on the high bidder letter by 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time. Name changes will not be accepted after that date. To submit a name change, the apparent high bidder must submit the name change on the Certificate of Eligibility form to the Ely District Office in writing. Certificate of Eligibility forms are available at the Ely District Office and at the BLM Web site at:
The BLM will not sign any documents related to 1031 Exchange transactions. The timing for completion of the exchange is the bidder's responsibility in accordance with Internal Revenue Service regulations. The BLM is not a party to any 1031 Exchange. In accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(f), the BLM may accept or reject any or all offers to purchase, or withdraw any parcel of land or interest therein from sale, if, in the opinion of the BLM authorized officer, consummation of the sale would be inconsistent with any law, or for other reasons.
In order to determine the FMV, certain assumptions may have been made concerning the attributes and limitations of the lands and potential effects of local regulations and policies on potential future land uses. Through publication of this Notice, the BLM advises that units of local Government may not endorse or approve these assumptions. The buyer must be aware of all applicable Federal, State, and local Government laws, regulations, and policies that may affect the subject lands, including any required dedication of lands for public uses. It is also the buyer's responsibility to be aware of existing or prospective uses of nearby properties. When conveyed out of Federal ownership, the lands will be subject to any applicable laws, regulations, and policies of the applicable local government for proposed future uses. It will be the responsibility of the purchaser to be aware through due diligence of those laws, regulations, and policies, and to seek any required local approvals for future uses. Buyers should make themselves aware of any Federal or State law or regulation that may affect the future use of the property. Lands lacking access from a public road or highway will be conveyed as such, and future access acquisition will be the responsibility of the buyer.
The BLM will only consider written comments as properly filed. No facsimiles, emails, or telephone calls will be considered as validly submitted comments. 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.
Any comments regarding the proposed sale will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.
43 CFR 2711.1-2(a) and (c).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to sell a 40-acre parcel of public land in White Pine County, NV by competitive sale. Bidding on the subject parcel will begin at not less than the appraised fair market value (FMV) of $81,580. The BLM is proposing to use the competitive sale procedures consistent with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, and the applicable BLM land sale regulations.
Interested persons may submit written comments to the BLM at the address below. The BLM must receive the comments on or before March 2, 2015. The oral auction will be held on April 1, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., Pacific Standard Time at the Ely District Office, 702 North Industrial Way, Ely, NV 89301.
Bureau of Land Management, Schell Field Office, HC 33 Box 33500, Ely, NV 89301.
Paul Podborny, Schell Field Manager, at Ely District Office, 702 N. Industrial Way, Ely, NV 89301, or by telephone at 775-289-1800, or by email at
The BLM will conduct a competitive sale (N-89521) for a 40-acre parcel of public land located north of Ely, NV, 1.3 miles east of U.S. Highway 93, described as follows:
The area described contains 40.00 acres.
Upon publication of this Notice in the
This tract of public land meets the disposal criteria consistent with Section 203 of FLPMA, as amended, and the BLM Ely District Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (ROD/RMP) dated, August 20, 2008. The parcel is identified as suitable for disposal and complies with Public Law 109-432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Title III—White Pine County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act (WPCCRDA), enacted on December 20, 2006. The proposed action conforms to the ROD/RMP as referenced in the Lands and Realty objectives LR-11, page 67; and listed in Appendix B, page B-4. All supporting documents to include a map and an appraisal report for the proposed sale are available for review at the BLM, Ely District Office. A Determination of National Environmental Policy Act Adequacy document number NV-L020-2011-0007 was completed on April 12, 2011.
No significant resource value will be affected by the disposal of this parcel. This parcel is not required for any Federal purposes, and its disposal is in the public interest and meets the intent of the WPCCRDA.
In accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1 and 2710.0-6(c)(3)(i), a competitive sale of public land may be used where there would be a number of interested parties bidding for the lands and (A) wherever in the judgment of the authorized officer the lands are accessible and usable regardless of adjoining land ownership and (B) Wherever the lands are within a developing or urbanizing area and land values are increasing due to their location and interest on the competitive market. The BLM examined the parcel (vacant land) and found it to be consistent with and suitable for disposal using competitive sale procedures.
Sale procedures: Registration for oral bidding will begin at 1:00 p.m. Pacific Time at the Ely District Office, 702 North Industrial Way, Ely, NV 89301, on the day of the sale. There will be no prior registration before the sale date. The public sale auction will be through oral bids. The high bidder will be declared the successful bidder in accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(d), competitive bidding procedures, where the highest qualifying bid received shall be publicly declared by the authorized officer. Acceptance or rejection of any offer(s) to purchase will be in accordance with the procedures set forth in 43 CFR 2711.3-1 (f) and (g).
A high bidder will be declared. In accordance with 2711.3-1(d), the person declared the highest bidder should submit their bid payment in the form of a bank draft, cashier's check, certified check, or U.S. postal money order, or any combination thereof, and made payable in U.S. dollars to the Department of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management. The high bidder must submit a deposit of no less that 20 percent of the successful bid by 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time on the day of the sale in the form of a bank draft, cashier's check, certified check, or U.S. postal money made payable in U.S. dollars to the “Department of the Interior- Bureau of Land Management.” Funds must be delivered no later than 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time on the day of the sale to the BLM, Collection Officers at BLM, Ely District Office, 702 North Industrial Way, Ely, NV 89301. Failure to submit the deposit following the close of the sale under 43 CFR 2711.3-1(d) will result in forfeiture of the bid deposit and the cancellation of the sale. No contractual or other rights against the United States may accrue until BLM officially accepts the offer to purchase and the full bid price is paid.
Full payment must be made within 180 days from the date the sale offer is received. Failure to pay the full purchase price within the allotted time will result in forfeiture of the bid deposit in accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(d). No exceptions will be made. The BLM cannot accept the full price at any time following the expiration of the 180th day after the sale offer. Arrangements for electronic fund transfer to BLM shall be made a minimum of two weeks prior to final payment. Failure to meet conditions established for this sale will void the sale and any funds received will be forfeited.
All mineral interests for the parcel will be reserved to the United States. A Mineral Potential Report was completed on May 24, 2011.
The public land will not be offered for sale prior to 60 days from the date this notice is published in the
1. A reservation for any right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Reservation in Patent Right Of Way for Ditches or Canals Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945);
2. A reservation for all minerals deposits in the land so patented, and to it or persons authorized by it, the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe shall be reserved to the United States;
3. The parcel will be subject to all valid existing rights; and
4. By accepting this patent, the purchasers/patentees agree to indemnify, defend, and hold the United States harmless from any costs, damages, claims, causes of action, penalties, fines, liabilities, and
The bidders must demonstrate to the authorized officer that they meet the requirements of 43 CFR 2711.2 to hold real property in the United States. Failure to submit documentation to the BLM within 30 days from receipt of the high bidder letter shall result in the cancellation of the bid. The parcel may be subject to land use applications received prior to publication of this notice if processing the application would have no adverse effect on the marketability of title, or the FMV of the parcel. Encumbrances of record, appearing in the case file for this sale, is available for review during business hours, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, at the BLM, Ely District Office, except during federally recognized holidays.
The parcel is subject to limitations prescribed by law and regulation, and prior to patent issuance, a holder of any ROW within the parcel may be given the opportunity to amend the ROW for conversion to a new term, including perpetuity, if applicable, or to an easement.
The BLM will notify valid existing ROW holders of their ability to convert their compliant rights-of-way to perpetual rights-of-way or easements. Each valid holder will be notified in writing of their rights and then must apply for the conversion of their current authorization.
Unless other satisfactory arrangements are approved in advance by a BLM authorized officer, conveyance of title shall be through the use of escrow. Designation of the escrow agent shall be through mutual agreement between the BLM and the prospective patentee, and costs of escrow shall be borne by the prospective patentee.
Requests for all escrow instructions must be received by the BLM, Ely District Office prior to 30 days before the scheduled closing date. There are no exceptions.
All name changes and supporting documentation must be received at the BLM, Ely District Office 30 days from the date on the high bidder letter by 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time. Name changes will not be accepted after that date. To submit a name change, the high bidder must submit the name change on the Certificate of Eligibility form to the BLM, Ely District Office in writing. Certificate of Eligibility forms are available at the BLM, Ely District Office and at the BLM Web site at:
The BLM will not sign any documents related to 1031 Exchange transactions. The timing for completion of the exchange is the bidder's responsibility in accordance with Internal Revenue Service regulations. The BLM is not a party to any 1031 Exchange.
In accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(f), the BLM may accept or reject any or all offers to purchase, or withdraw any parcel of land or interest therein from sale, if, in the opinion of the BLM authorized officer, consummation of the sale would be inconsistent with any law, or for other reasons.
In order to determine the FMV through appraisal, certain extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions are made concerning the attributes and limitations of the land and potential effects of local regulations and policies on potential future land uses. Through publication of this Notice, the BLM advises that these assumptions may not be endorsed or approved by units of local Government.
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.
Any comments regarding the proposed sale will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.
43 CFR 2711.1-2(a) and (c).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of realty action.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to sell a 40-acre parcel of public land in White Pine County, Nevada by modified
Interested persons may submit written comments to the BLM at the address below. The BLM must receive the comments on or before March 2, 2015. The oral auction will be held on April 1, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., Pacific Standard Time at the Ely District Office, 702 North Industrial Way, Ely, NV 89301.
Bureau of Land Management, Schell Field Office, HC 33 Box 33500, Ely, NV 89301.
Paul Podborny, Schell Field Manager, at Ely District Office, 702 N. Industrial Way, Ely, NV 89301, or by telephone at 775-289-1800, or by email at
The BLM will conduct a modified competitive sale for a 40-acre parcel of public land located north of Ely, NV, 1.3 miles east of U.S. Highway 93, described as follows:
The area described contains 40.00 acres.
Upon publication of this Notice in the
This tract of public land has been identified for disposal by the BLM in the Ely District Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (ROD/RMP), dated August 20, 2008, as referenced in the Lands and Realty objectives LR-11, page 67, and listed in Appendix B, page B-4. Disposal of the Parcel with be conducted consistent with Section 203 of FLPMA and Public Law 109-432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Title III—White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (WPCCRDA), enacted on December 20, 2006. All supporting documents to include a map and an appraisal report for the proposed sale are available for review at the BLM, Ely District Office. A Determination of National Environmental Policy Act Adequacy numbered NV-L020-2011-0007 for this sale was approved on April 12, 2011.
No significant resource value will be affected by the disposal of this parcel. This parcel is not required for any Federal purposes, and its disposal is in the public interest and meets the intent of the WPCCRDA and FLPMA Section 203.
In accordance with 43 CFR 2710.0-6(c)(1), 43 CFR 2710.0-06(c)(3)(ii), and 43 CFR 2711.3-3(a)(2), the BLM determined that a modified competitive sale would be appropriate based on equitable considerations in order to recognize historical users of the parcel, to protect on-going uses, and to avoid dislocation of existing users. Consistent with these requirements, the BLM identified Terry and Randy Reck as the designated bidders for the sale of this parcel.
Modified competitive bidding includes, but is not limited to, offering the designated bidder the right to meet the highest bid or the right of first refusal to purchase the land at not less than the FMV. The highest bid among the qualified bids received for this sale will be declared. Refusal or failure to meet the highest bid shall constitute a waiver of the designated bidder preference.
The designated bidder or his authorized representative must be present at the oral bid sale. Should the designated bidder appoint a representative for this sale, they must submit in writing a notarized document identifying the level of capacity given to their designated representative. This document must be signed by both parties. The designated bidder or his authorized representative will have the opportunity to meet and accept the high bid as the purchase price of the parcel or to refuse that offer. Should the designated bidder or his authorized representative fail to exercise the preference consideration offered by the authorized officer to meet the high bid as the purchase price at the sale, the sale will proceed in accordance with regulations at 43 CFR 2711.3-2(c) using the procedures specified in 43 CFR 2711.3-1. Acceptance or rejection of any offer to purchase will be in accordance with the procedures set forth in 43 CFR 2711.3-1(f) and (g).
In accordance with 2711.3-1(d), the person declared the highest bidder should submit the bid payment in the form of a bank draft, cashier's check, certified check, or U.S. postal money order, or any combination thereof, and made payable in U.S. dollars to the Department of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management. The high bidder must submit a deposit of no less that 20 percent of the successful bid by 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time on the day of the sale in the form of a certified check, postal money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable in U.S. dollars to the “Department of the Interior-Bureau of Land Management.” Funds must be delivered no later than 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time on the day of the sale to the BLM Collection Officers at Ely District Office, 702 North Industrial Way, Ely, NV 89301. Failure to submit the deposit following the close of the sale under 43 CFR 2711.3-1(d) will result in forfeiture of the bid deposit and the cancellation of the sale. No contractual or other rights against the United States may accrue until BLM officially accepts the offer to purchase and the full bid price is paid.
Full payment must be made within 180 days from the date the sale offer is received. Failure to pay the full purchase price within the allotted time will result in forfeiture of the bid deposit in accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(d). No exceptions will be made. Arrangements for electronic fund transfer to BLM shall be made a minimum of two weeks prior to final payment. Failure to meet conditions established for this sale will void the sale and any monies received will be forfeited.
All mineral interests for the parcel will be reserved to the United States. A
Public Law 109-432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Title III—White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (WPCCRDA), Section 311(h)(1), states that Federal land described in subsection (a) is withdrawn from all forms of entry and appropriation under the public land laws and mining laws; all minerals will be retained by the Federal Government. Additionally, upon publication of this Notice of Realty Action, the described land will be segregated from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws, except for the sale provisions of FLPMA.
The public land will not be offered for sale prior to 60 days from the date this notice is published in the
1. A reservation for any right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Reservation in Patent Right-of-Way for Ditches or Canals Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945);
2. A reservation for all minerals deposited in the land so patented, and to it or person authorized by it, the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe shall be reserved to the United States;
3. The parcel will be subject to all valid existing rights; and
4. By accepting this patent, the purchasers/patentees agree to indemnify, defend, and hold the United States harmless from any costs, damages, claims, causes of action, penalties, fines, liabilities, and judgments of any kind or nature arising from the past, present, and future acts or omissions of the patentee, its employees, agents, contractors, or lessees, or any third-party, arising out of or in connection with the patentee's use, occupancy, or operations on the patented real property. This indemnification and hold harmless agreement includes, but is not limited to, acts and omissions of the patentee, its employees, agents, contractors, or lessees, or any third party, arising out of or in connection with the use and/or occupancy of the patented real property resulting in: (a) Violations of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations that are now or may in the future become, applicable to the real property; (b) Judgments, claims or demands of any kind assessed against the United States; (c) Costs, expenses, or damages of any kind incurred by the United States; (d) Releases or threatened releases of solid or hazardous waste(s) and/or hazardous substances(s), as defined by Federal or State environmental laws, off, on, into or under land, property and other interests of the United States; (e) Other activities by which solid waste or hazardous substances or waste, as defined by Federal and State environmental laws are generated, released, stored, used or otherwise disposed of on the patented real property, and any cleanup response, remedial action or other actions related in any manner to said solid or hazardous substances or wastes; or (f) Natural resource damages as defined by Federal and State law. This covenant shall be construed as running with the patented real property, and may be enforced by the United States in a court of competent jurisdiction.
The bidders must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that they meet the requirements of 43 CFR 2711.2 to hold real property in the United States. Failure to submit documentation to the BLM within 30 days from receipt of the high bidder letter shall result in the cancellation of the bid. The parcel may be subject to land use applications received prior to publication of this notice if processing the application would have no adverse effect on the marketability of title, or the FMV of the parcel. Encumbrances of record, appearing in the case file for this sale are available for review during business hours, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, at the Ely District Office, except during federally recognized holidays.
The parcel is subject to limitations prescribed by law and regulation, and prior to patent issuance, a holder of any right-of-way within the parcel may be given the opportunity to amend the right-of-way for conversion to a new term, including perpetuity, if applicable, or to an easement.
The BLM will notify valid existing right-of-way holders of their ability to convert their compliant rights-of-way to perpetual rights-of-way or easements. Each valid holder will be notified in writing of their rights and then must apply for the conversion of their current authorization.
Unless other satisfactory arrangements are approved in advance by a BLM authorized officer, conveyance of title shall be through the use of escrow. Designation of the escrow agent shall be through mutual agreement between the BLM and the prospective patentee, and costs of escrow shall be borne by the prospective patentee.
Requests for all escrow instructions must be received by the BLM, Ely District Office prior to 30 days before the scheduled closing date. There are no exceptions.
All name changes and supporting documentation must be received at the BLM, Ely District Office 30 days from the date on the high bidder letter by 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time. Name changes will not be accepted after that date. To submit a name change, the high bidder(s) must submit the name change on the Certificate of Eligibility form to the BLM, Ely District Office in writing. Certificate of Eligibility forms are available at the BLM, Ely District Office and at the BLM Web site at:
The BLM will not sign any documents related to 1031 Exchange transactions. The timing for completion of the exchange is the bidder's responsibility in accordance with Internal Revenue Service regulations. The BLM is not a party to any 1031 Exchange.
In accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(f), the BLM may accept or reject any or all offers to purchase, or withdraw any parcel of land or interest therein from sale, if, in the opinion of the BLM authorized officer, consummation of the sale would be inconsistent with any law, or for other reasons.
In order to determine the FMV through appraisal certain extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions are made concerning the attributes and limitations of the land and potential effects of local regulations and policies on potential future land uses. Through publication of this Notice, the BLM advises that these assumptions may not be endorsed or approved by units of local Government.
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.
Any comments regarding the proposed sale will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.
43 CFR 2711.1-2(a) and (c).
On January 2, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia in the lawsuit entitled
The United States of America (“United States”), on behalf of the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), and the State of Georgia on behalf of the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, (“State”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs), filed a complaint against Renessenz, LLC (“Defendant” or “Renessenz”) pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act (“SWDA”), as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. 6901
Under the Consent Decree, the Defendant must permanently close various components of its wastewater treatment system in accordance with the Georgia Rules for Hazardous Waste Management, Chapter 391-3-11-.10 (Subpart G of 40 CFR part 264 and 40 CFR 264.197 and/or 40 CFR 264.228), as well as construct a new wastewater treatment system that is compliant with RCRA, the Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Act (“HWMA”), and those two statutes' implementing regulations. If the Defendant cannot demonstrate “clean closure,” or the removal of all wastes from the various components of the wastewater treatment system, the surrounding soils, and equipment, then the Defendant must apply for a permit to perform post-closure care, including corrective action, at the facility.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $11.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Department of Justice.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
This notice announces a forthcoming public meeting of the National Commission on Forensic Science.
The meeting will be held on January 29, 2015 from 12:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and January 30, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Online registration for the meeting must be completed on or before 5:00 p.m. (EST) January 24, 2015. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before February 13, 2015. The electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) will accept comments until Midnight Eastern Time at the end of that day.
Office of Justice Programs, 3rd floor ballroom. 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531.
Brette Steele, Senior Forensic Science Advisor and Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530, by email at
Members of the public may present oral comments on issues pending before the Commission. Those individuals interested in making oral comments should indicate their intent through the on-line registration form and time will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. Time allotted for an individual's comment period will be limited to no more than three minutes. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled public comment periods, written comments will be accepted in lieu of oral comments through the procedures described below.
In accordance with the Federal Records Act, please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record, and shall be made available for public inspection online at
You are not required to submit personal identifying information in order to comment on this meeting. Nevertheless, if you want to submit personally identifiable information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made available for public inspection and posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all the personally identifiable information you do not want made available for public inspection or posted online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made available for public inspection and posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made available for public inspection or posted online.
Personally identifiable information and confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will be redacted and the comment, in redacted form, will be made available for public inspection and posted on
The Department of Justice 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, please indicate your requirements on the online registration form.
On December 31, 2014, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska in a lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607(a). The United States' complaint names the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska as defendants. The complaint requests an order requiring the University of Nebraska to perform specified remedial actions and seeks recovery of costs that the United States has incurred and will incur responding to releases and the threat of releases of hazardous substances at and from real property owned and operated by the University and comprising most of the Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant Superfund Site (“NOP” or the “Site”) located in Mead, Saunders County, Nebraska. The Defendant has signed the Consent Decree.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:
During the public comment period, Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $ 34.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in
Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection at the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 450 Fifth Street NW., Suite 1010, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202-514-2481), on the Department of Justice's Web site at
Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, including the name of the submitter, and responses thereto, will be posted on the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division's internet Web site, filed with the Court and, under certain circumstances, published in the
The United States of America brings this antitrust action to enjoin Verso Paper Corp. from acquiring NewPage Holdings Inc. The proposed acquisition would likely substantially lessen competition in the manufacture and sale of coated freesheet web paper, coated groundwood paper, and label paper to customers in North America. By acquiring NewPage, Verso would eliminate its foremost competitor in the sale of these products.
1. Both Verso and NewPage produce two types of coated publication papers—coated freesheet web paper and coated groundwood paper. Post-acquisition, the combined company would control approximately 50 percent of the coated freesheet web market in North America, which accounts for more than $2 billion in sales, and 40 percent of the coated groundwood market, which accounts for more than $3 billion in sales. Vigorous competition between Verso and NewPage has ensured a reliable supply of high-quality coated publication papers to North American purchasers at competitive prices. Verso's proposed acquisition of NewPage would eliminate this intense competition, and would likely increase the incentives of the merged firm—and the remaining firms in the market—to increase prices and reduce output.
2. Verso and NewPage are the largest producers in North America of two types of label paper: cut-and-stack label paper and face sheet for pressure-sensitive labels. Post-acquisition, the combined company would control approximately 70 percent of the North American label-paper market, which accounts for approximately $350 million in sales. Verso has been a fierce competitor to NewPage, the leading seller of label paper. Customers have taken advantage of this competition by playing Verso and NewPage off each other to obtain more favorable prices. Verso's acquisition of NewPage would extinguish this competition.
3. The United States brings this action under Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 25, to prevent Verso and NewPage from violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.
4. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 25.
5. Verso and NewPage are engaged in, and their activities substantially affect, interstate commerce. Collectively, the parties' 2013 coated freesheet web, coated groundwood, and label paper revenues in the United States were approximately $2.5 billion.
6. Venue is proper in this District under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 22. Both Verso and New Page are corporations that sell publication papers to customers located in this District. Verso and NewPage have consented to personal jurisdiction and venue in this Court.
7. Defendant Verso is a corporation headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. It operates two mills that collectively produce coated freesheet web paper, coated groundwood paper, label paper, and other types of paper. Verso's mills are located in Maine and Michigan. In early December 2014, Verso closed its mill in Bucksport, Maine, which produced coated groundwood paper.
8. Defendant NewPage is a corporation headquartered in Miamisburg, Ohio. NewPage operates eight mills that collectively produce coated freesheet web paper, coated groundwood paper, label paper, and other types of paper. These mills are located in Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Maine.
9. On January 3, 2014, Verso agreed to acquire NewPage in a transaction valued at approximately $1.4 billion.
10. Coated freesheet web paper and coated groundwood paper are coated on both sides with a clay or other coating. The coating gives the paper a smooth surface and glossy appearance and allows for printing of high-quality graphics.
11. Coated freesheet web paper is bright, heavier-weight glossy paper with excellent print qualities that is used primarily for annual reports, magazine covers and premium magazines, upscale brochures, and direct mail advertising. Coated freesheet web paper is produced for use in web printing applications. Web printing is typically used for large, high-speed printing jobs and requires paper rolls that are capable of being fed through the web printing equipment.
12. Coated groundwood paper is typically used for the interior pages of magazines and catalogues, the covers of low-cost magazines, and other medium-quality printing applications. Together, coated freesheet web paper and coated groundwood paper are referred to in this complaint as “coated publication papers.”
13. Competition in the coated publication paper markets is driven by several factors, including head-to-head bidding between manufacturers to serve the particular needs of specific customers, and by capacity and demand conditions. Producers individually negotiate most sales with customers. Customers have varying preferences for coated publication papers due to the papers' varying characteristics, such as brightness, weight, printability, and smoothness. Customers often have specific requirements for the paper that they purchase, and customers typically evaluate each manufacturer's products and qualify their products before purchasing from that manufacturer. Producers try to manufacture products that meet the needs of printers and end users.
14. Demand for most coated publication papers in North America has declined over the last several years because of a significant decline in demand for magazines, catalogues, and other publications. As a result, North American producers of coated publication papers have closed a number of mills and decommissioning of machines. Declining demand for coated publication papers is projected to continue, as is the closing of mills and decommissioned machines.
15. Label paper is typically used to make labels for certain consumer goods, such as canned foods or wine bottles. Label paper is made from a type of freesheet paper that is coated on one side for printing, allowing the uncoated side to adhere to the product.
16. In the event of a small but significant and non-transitory price increase, purchasers of coated freesheet web paper are unlikely to substitute to other types of paper in sufficient quantities to make the price increase unprofitable because coated freesheet web paper has characteristics that distinguish it from other types of paper. Some of these characteristics affect the appearance and performance of the product, whereas other characteristics affect the printing process for which the paper may be used.
17. Coated freesheet web paper is therefore a relevant product market and line of commerce under Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
18. In the event of a small but significant and non-transitory price increase, purchasers of coated groundwood paper are unlikely to substitute to other types of paper in sufficient quantities to make the price increase unprofitable because other papers are typically more expensive, have a different look and feel, or otherwise have characteristics that are undesirable for coated groundwood applications.
19. Coated groundwood paper is therefore a relevant product market and line of commerce under Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
20. In the event of a small but significant and non-transitory price increase, purchasers of label paper are unlikely to substitute to other kinds of paper in sufficient quantities to make the price increase unprofitable because label paper produces a high-quality appearance, is coated on only one side, and has other desirable characteristics. Purchasers of label paper are also unlikely to substitute to other label options in sufficient quantities to make the price increase unprofitable because changing the type of label could require a change in the product's container or packaging.
21. Label paper is therefore a relevant product market and line of commerce under Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
22. The relevant geographic market for analyzing the likely effects of the proposed acquisition on the sale of each relevant product is no larger than the United States and Canada (referred to here as “North America,” consistent with usage in the paper industry).
23. Defining a geographic market based on the location of customers is appropriate where, as here, (1) producers charge different prices based on customer location, and (2) arbitrage by customers is difficult.
24. For each relevant product, producers typically negotiate individual prices with each customer. Arbitrage is impractical because a customer in North America would need to find the product with the particular characteristics it requires from a customer outside of North America who has purchased that product at a significantly lower price to allow for shipping costs to North America. Furthermore, the additional costs of re-handling and re-shipping the product make arbitrage prohibitively expensive. Finally, a customer purchasing through arbitrage loses valuable services that producers often provide, such as inventory management, warranties, and technical support.
25. In the event of a small but significant and non-transitory price increase, purchasers of each relevant product in North America are unlikely to defeat the price increase. North America is therefore a relevant geographic market for each relevant product under Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
26. The proposed acquisition would likely significantly increase market concentration, eliminate head-to-head competition between Verso and NewPage, increase incentives to raise prices and reduce output, and facilitate accommodating conduct by competitors in the sale of coated publication papers.
27. The proposed acquisition would significantly increase market concentration for coated publication papers. Market concentration is a useful indicator of the level of competitive vigor in a market and the likely competitive effects of a proposed acquisition. The more concentrated a market, and the more a transaction would increase market concentration, the more likely it is that the transaction would substantially reduce competition. Concentration in relevant markets is typically measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). Markets in which the post-merger HHI is above 2,500 are considered highly concentrated. Mergers that increase the HHI by more than 200 points and result in a highly concentrated market are presumed likely to create or enhance market power. Markets in which the post-merger HHI is between 1,500 and 2,500 are considered moderately concentrated. Mergers that increase the HHI by more than 100 points and result in a moderately concentrated market potentially raise significant competitive concerns.
28. NewPage and Verso are the first and third largest competitors in the North American coated freesheet web paper market. New Page accounts for approximately 30 percent of market sales, and Verso accounts for
29. The proposed acquisition would result in a highly concentrated market for coated freesheet web paper, with a post-merger HHI of approximately 3,500. The proposed acquisition would increase the HHI by approximately 1,200, and thus significantly increase market concentration.
30. NewPage and Verso are the first and second largest competitors in the North American coated groundwood market. NewPage and Verso each account for approximately 20 percent of market sales. Post-merger, the combined firm would have an approximately 40 percent share.
31. The proposed acquisition would result in a moderately concentrated market with a post-merger HHI of approximately 2,200. The acquisition would increase the HHI by approximately 800, and thus significantly increase market concentration.
32. Verso and NewPage have frequently competed for sales to coated publication paper customers. The proposed acquisition would eliminate this head-to-head competition.
33. The proposed acquisition would also increase Verso's incentive and ability to raise price and reduce output of coated publication papers. Consequently, the acquisition would likely lead to increased downtime, accelerated mill closures, and reduced output in North America.
34. The acquisition would likely facilitate accommodating conduct by competitors, leading to increased prices and reduced output. Despite the differentiated nature of coated publication paper markets, these markets are conducive to accommodating conduct by competitors. A small number of producers dominate the industry, and producers regularly obtain information from customers about their options and competitors' prices and product availability.
35. The proposed acquisition likely would substantially lessen competition in the sale of label paper. The acquisition would substantially increase market concentration and eliminate the head-to-head competition between Verso and NewPage.
36. NewPage accounts for approximately 60 percent of the market and Verso accounts for approximately 10 percent. Post-acquisition, the combined firm would have approximately a 70 percent share. The proposed acquisition is presumptively anticompetitive because it would substantially increase market concentration in the already highly concentrated label-paper market from approximately 3,800 to 5,300.
37. Customers have played Verso and NewPage off each other in negotiations to obtain lower prices and better products and service. If the acquisition were completed, customers would no longer be able to do so, likely enabling the combined firm to raise prices and eliminating beneficial non-price competition between Verso and NewPage.
38. Entry by new competitors or expansion by existing competitors is unlikely to be timely or sufficient in scope to prevent the proposed acquisition's likely anticompetitive effects. Entry into publication papers is unlikely due to the declining demand for coated publication papers and the high cost of building a new coated paper mill. Entry into label papers is costly, uncertain, and time-consuming, as successful entrants need to test and qualify each new product with each major customer.
39. Supply responses from overseas manufacturers are unlikely to prevent a substantial lessening of competition. Prices are generally higher for imports than for domestic products. Furthermore, foreign producers are limited by commitments to more profitable local markets; by significant transportation costs and logistical issues; by customers' exacting product specifications and preferences for short lead times; and by fluctuations in currency exchange rates, which disrupt consumer preferences for stable supply relationships.
40. The acquisition is unlikely to produce sufficient merger-specific, cognizable efficiencies that Verso would pass through to consumers to reverse the acquisition's likely anticompetitive effects.
41. The effect of the proposed acquisition, if completed, would likely be to substantially lessen competition in interstate trade and commerce in the relevant markets, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
42. Unless enjoined, the proposed acquisition likely would have the following effects in each of the relevant markets:
(a) competition between Verso and NewPage would be eliminated;
(b) competition would likely be substantially lessened;
(c) prices would likely be higher than they otherwise would; and
(d) output would likely be lower than it otherwise would.
43. The United States requests that the Court:
(a) judge Verso's proposed acquisition of NewPage to violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18;
(b) permanently enjoin Verso from acquiring any of the assets of NewPage or engaging in any other transaction that would combine the two companies;
(c) award Plaintiff the costs of this action; and
(d) award Plaintiff other just and proper relief.
December 31, 2014.
Respectfully Submitted,
Plaintiff United States of America (“United States”), pursuant to Section
On January 3, 2014, Defendant Verso Paper Corp. (“Verso”) agreed to acquire all of the assets of Defendant NewPage Holdings Inc. (“NewPage”). The United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint on December 31, 2014, seeking to enjoin the proposed acquisition. The Complaint alleges that the likely effect of this acquisition would be to lessen competition substantially in the markets for coated publication papers and label paper in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. For each product, this loss of competition likely would result in higher prices, lower output, and fewer services for customers in North America.
At the same time the Complaint was filed, the United States also filed a Hold Separate Stipulation and Order (“Hold Separate”) and proposed Final Judgment, which are designed to eliminate the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition. Under the proposed Final Judgment, which is explained more fully below, the Defendants must divest two NewPage mills that manufacture the relevant products. Under the terms of the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, the Defendants will take certain steps to ensure that the assets being divested will be operated as a competitively independent, economically viable, and ongoing business concern, that will remain independent and uninfluenced by the consummation of the acquisition, and that competition is maintained during the pendency of the ordered divestiture.
The United States and the Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment would terminate this action, except that the Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment and to punish violations thereof.
On January 3, 2014, Verso agreed to acquire NewPage for approximately $1.4 billion. In North America, Verso and NewPage are two of the largest producers of coated paper. Verso and NewPage produce a range of coated papers, including coated publication papers and label paper.
Verso, a corporation headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee, owns and operates two mills, both of which are located in North America.
NewPage, a corporation headquartered in Miamisburg, Ohio, owns and operates eight mills, all of which are located in North America. The mills collectively produce a range of coated freesheet web paper, coated groundwood paper, and label paper sold to customers throughout North America. Its annual sales for 2013 were approximately $3.1 billion.
1. The Relevant Product Markets are Coated Freesheet Web Paper, Coated Groundwood Paper, and Label Paper.
The Complaint alleges three types of coated paper are relevant product markets within the meaning of Section 7 of the Clayton Act: coated freesheet web paper, coated groundwood paper, and label paper. Coated freesheet paper and coated groundwood paper are both used for publications and are typically coated on two sides. Coated freesheet paper is made from pulp that has impurities removed before being made into paper, resulting in bright, high-quality paper. Coated freesheet paper is typically used for annual reports, magazine covers, premium magazines, brochures, and direct mail advertising.
Coated freesheet web paper is produced for use in web printing applications. Web printers feed paper rolls through the printing equipment rather than individual sheets of paper, as used in sheet-fed printing applications. Web printing typically involves different equipment and different paper than sheet-fed printing. In particular, coated freesheet paper for use in web printing has lower moisture content so that heat applied in the printing process does not cause the paper to blister. For this reason, coated freesheet paper produced for use in sheet-fed printers is functionally not a substitute for coated freesheet web paper.
For customers who choose coated freesheet paper for their printed material, web printing is often the more cost-effective choice for large print jobs than sheet-fed printing, which typically is more cost-effective for small print jobs. In response to a small but significant increase in the price of coated freesheet web paper, customers who use coated freesheet web paper for their print jobs are unlikely to substitute to sheet-fed printing or other alternatives in sufficient quantity to make the price increase unprofitable. As such, coated freesheet web paper is a relevant product.
Coated groundwood paper is also a relevant product. Coated groundwood paper is typically used for the interior pages of magazines and catalogues, the covers of low-cost magazines, and other similar-quality printing applications. In response to a small but significant increase in the price of coated groundwood paper, purchasers are unlikely to switch to coated freesheet paper in sufficient quantities to make the price increase unprofitable because coated freesheet paper is typically more expensive, heavier, or has other characteristics that are undesirable for coated groundwood applications. Purchasers are also unlikely to switch to lower quality paper in sufficient quantities to make the price increase unprofitable because lower quality paper produces a less appealing printed page than coated groundwood paper.
Label paper is a relevant product. Label paper is typically made from coated freesheet paper. Label paper is coated on only one side; the other side is treated with an adhesive for placement on an object or surface. Label paper is principally used for two types of applications: cut-and-stack labels such as those that appear on canned food, and the face paper for pressure-sensitive labels such as those that appear on wine bottles. Label paper purchasers require a consistently high-quality label because the label is an important aspect of a product's brand recognition and therefore sales success. The cost of the label, moreover, is typically a small fraction of the cost of the product on which the label appears. Because high-quality labels are critical to a product's marketplace image and
2. The Relevant Geographic Market Is No Larger than Customers Located In North America.
For each relevant product, the Complaint alleges that the relevant geographic market is no larger than North America (defined consistent with industry terminology as the United States and Canada). The market is defined around the location of customers because suppliers typically negotiate prices on a delivered basis with individual customers. As a result, suppliers charge different prices to different customers based on the customers' location. A hypothetical monopolist of each of the three relevant products sold to customers located in North America would likely profit from a small but significant price increase. Customers located in North America would likely not avoid the price increase by engaging in arbitrage. Arbitrage would entail a customer trying to avoid the price increase by purchasing products from another customer outside the relevant market. Arbitrage is unlikely to occur in sufficient quantities to make the price increase unprofitable because the end customer would need to pay significant incremental shipping costs that would make arbitrage an uneconomical strategy. Arbitrage is also unlikely to occur because a customer purchasing through arbitrage loses valuable services that producers often provide, such as inventory management, just-in-time delivery, warranties, and technical support.
3. The Proposed Acquisition Will Likely Result In Anticompetitive Effects.
The Complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition will likely substantially lessen competition in all three relevant markets. In each market, the Complaint alleges that the acquisition will likely increase concentration substantially and eliminate significant head-to-head competition, leading to higher prices and reduced output. In the coated freesheet web and coated groundwood markets, the Complaint further alleges that the acquisition will likely cause the remaining competitors to accommodate one another's price increases and output reductions.
The proposed acquisition is presumptively unlawful because it will increase concentration significantly in the highly concentrated coated freesheet web and label paper markets. Market concentration is a useful indicator of the level of competitive vigor in a market and the likely competitive effects of a proposed acquisition. The more concentrated a market and the more an acquisition would increase market concentration, the more likely that the acquisition would substantially reduce competition. Courts typically measure concentration in relevant markets using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). Markets in which the post-acquisition HHI is between 1,500 and 2,500 are considered to be moderately concentrated and markets in which the HHI exceeds 2,500 are considered highly concentrated. Acquisitions that increase the HHI by more than 200 points and result in a highly concentrated market are presumed likely to create or enhance market power.
In the markets for coated freesheet web paper and label paper, the proposed acquisition would significantly increase concentration in highly concentrated markets. In the coated freesheet web market, NewPage had a 30% market share and Verso had a 20% market share at the end of 2013. The post-acquisition HHI would increase by approximately 1,200 to approximately 3,500. In the label paper market, NewPage had a 60% market share and Verso had a 10% market share at the end of 2013. The HHI would increase by approximately 1,500, and the post-acquisition HHI would be approximately 5,300. In the coated groundwood market, NewPage and Verso each had a 20% market share at the end of 2013. The proposed acquisition would increase concentration by approximately 800 and result in a moderately concentrated market, with a post-acquisition HHI of approximately 2,200.
Demand for coated publication papers has declined over the last several years, and this decline is projected to continue for the foreseeable future. Continued declines in demand will likely cause inefficient competitors to exit the markets while only cost-effective competitors will survive. In the coated freesheet web market, the Defendants are two of three firms with cost-effective mills. In the coated groundwood and label markets, the Defendants are two of a small number of firms with cost-effective mills.
Products within each of the relevant product markets are differentiated. Customers have varying preferences for product quality, appearance, and performance. Verso, NewPage, and other producers design products and marketing strategies to cater to these varying preferences. For many customers of the relevant products, Verso and NewPage competed head-to-head for business and represented the two best alternatives. For these customers, the acquisition would reduce competition because they would lose one of their two best options and a less desirable option would become the customer's best alternative. The proposed acquisition eliminates this head-to-head competition.
In addition, the coated freesheet web and coated groundwood markets are conducive to accommodating conduct by competitors because a small number of producers dominate the industry, and producers regularly obtain information from customers about their options and competitors' prices and product availability. Remaining competitors would likely find it more profitable to follow price increases rather than lower prices and risk a competitive response from other firms.
4. Supply Responses and Creditable, Procompetitive Efficiencies Would Not Likely Prevent Anticompetitive Effects.
The Complaint alleges that supply responses from new competitors or expansion by existing competitors are unlikely to be timely or sufficient in scope to prevent the reduction in competition likely to result from the proposed acquisition. Entry or expansion into each of the relevant markets is costly and time-consuming. A competitive entrant would need a cost-effective mill. Building such a mill would cost billions of dollars, take two or more years to build, and require extensive environmental permits to construct. New competitors also would need to secure major customers, which often involves lengthy and expensive qualification processes.
Non-North American producers are unlikely to increase imports into North America to prevent the likely anticompetitive effects. Overseas producers tend to focus on markets that are closer to them where they can earn higher margins, rather than selling in the more distant North American markets where they pay higher shipping costs. In addition, customers require timely delivery, as coated paper is an essential input into their final products. Procuring coated paper from overseas adds significant lead time, increases the risk of delivery delays, and makes more difficult quick correction of quality problems. Also, fluctuations in foreign exchange rates pose a challenge to overseas producers competitively selling to customers in North America because they add substantial risk to long-term relationships.
Finally, the Complaint alleges that Defendants cannot demonstrate cognizable, merger-specific efficiencies that Verso would pass through to consumers in the form of lower prices, higher quality, or better service to counteract the likely anticompetitive effects.
The divestiture requirement of the proposed Final Judgment will eliminate the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition in the North American market for coated publication papers and label paper by establishing a new, independent, and economically-viable competitor. The proposed Final Judgment requires the Defendants, within ten (10) days after the Court enters the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order in this matter to divest, as a viable ongoing business, NewPage's Rumford, Maine, and Biron, Wisconsin, mills, and all associated mill assets (the “Divestiture Mills”). The Divestiture Mills must be divested in such a way as to satisfy the United States in its sole discretion that the operations can and will be operated by the purchaser as a viable, ongoing business that can compete effectively in the coated freesheet web, coated groundwood, and label paper markets. The Defendants must take all reasonable steps necessary to accomplish the divestiture quickly and shall cooperate with prospective purchasers.
The Defendants must sell the Divestiture Mills to Catalyst Paper Corporation (“Catalyst”). Catalyst is a forest-products company headquartered in British Columbia, Canada. Catalyst operates three paper mills, all located in British Columbia. Catalyst makes a variety of paper grades across its mill system. At its Port Alberni mill, Catalyst produces coated groundwood paper and small quantities of coated freesheet web paper. Catalyst does not produce label paper. If, for some reason, Defendants are unable to complete the sale to Catalyst, they must sell the Divestiture Mills to an alternative purchaser who must be approved by the United States.
The proposed Final Judgment provides that the United States may appoint a Monitoring Trustee with the power and authority to investigate and report on the Defendants' compliance with the terms of the Final Judgment and the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order. The Monitoring Trustee would not have any responsibility or obligation for the operation of the Defendants' businesses. The Monitoring Trustee would serve at the Defendants' expense, on such terms and conditions as the United States approves, and the Defendants would be required to assist the trustee in fulfilling its obligations. The Monitoring Trustee would serve for two years. The United States may, in its sole discretion, extend the Monitoring Trustee's term for an additional year. The Monitoring Trustee would file monthly reports for the first year and annual reports for each year thereafter, or more frequently as needed.
In the event that Defendants do not accomplish the divestiture within the periods prescribed in the proposed Final Judgment, the Final Judgment provides that the Court will appoint a trustee selected by the United States to effect the divestiture. If a trustee is appointed, the proposed Final Judgment provides that the Defendants will pay all costs and expenses of the trustee. The trustee's commission would be structured so as to provide an incentive for the trustee based on the price obtained and the speed with which the divestiture is accomplished. After his or her appointment becomes effective, the trustee would file monthly reports with the Court and the United States setting forth his or her efforts to accomplish the divestiture. At the end of six (6) months, if the divestiture has not been accomplished, the trustee and the United States would make recommendations to the Court, which shall enter such orders as appropriate, in order to carry out the purpose of the trust, including extending the trust or the term of the trustee's appointment.
The divestiture provisions of the proposed Final Judgment preserve the competition that would be lost if the proposed acquisition occurred without the divestiture. The divestiture will largely maintain the existing structure of the relevant markets. The mills to be divested produced approximately 940,000 tons of coated publication papers, label paper, and other papers, which is approximately the same amount of production as Verso currently operates. In addition, the divestiture will provide the purchaser of the divested assets with a market presence comparable to Verso's current market presence in the relevant markets. The purchaser will also obtain production assets that have a track record of competitively producing a range of coated publication papers and label paper.
The proposed Final Judgment provides that the purchaser of the Biron mill will have the option to procure softwood kraft pulp from Verso's Wisconsin Rapids mill through a pulp supply contract. Price will be set using a methodology consistent with the methodology that Defendants historically have used in setting transfer prices for bleached softwood kraft pulp provided to the Biron mill, with appropriate overhead costs removed. The Biron mill has a semi-integrated pulp supply. The mill produces its own mechanical pulp and receives softwood kraft pulp from NewPage's Wisconsin Rapids mill, which is approximately four miles away, through a pipeline and by truck. The supply contract under the proposed Final Judgment will enable the Biron mill to sell coated groundwood products at competitive prices.
The proposed Final Judgment also provides that the purchaser of the Biron mill will have the option to procure waste and wastewater disposal services from Verso. Price will be set using a methodology consistent with the methodology that Defendants historically have used in setting transfer prices for waste and wastewater disposal services provided to the Biron mill, with appropriate overhead costs removed. The Biron mill currently shares waste and wastewater disposal service with other mills owned by NewPage. The waste and wastewater services contract under the proposed Final Judgment will enable the Biron mill to sell coated groundwood products at competitive prices.
Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, provides that any person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three times the damages the person has suffered, as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will neither impair nor assist the bringing of any private antitrust damage action. Under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no prima facie effect in any subsequent private lawsuit that may be brought against Defendants.
The United States and Defendants have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance with the provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry upon the Court's determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest.
The APPA provides a period of at least sixty (60) days preceding the
Written comments should be submitted to: Peter J. Mucchetti, Chief, Litigation I Section, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice, 450 5th Street NW., Suite 4100, Washington, DC 20530.
The proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains jurisdiction over this action, and the parties may apply to the Court for any order necessary or appropriate for the modification, interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment.
The United States considered, as an alternative to the proposed Final Judgment, a full trial on the merits against Defendants. The United States could have continued the litigation and sought preliminary and permanent injunctions against Verso's acquisition of NewPage. The United States is satisfied, however, that the divestiture of assets described in the proposed Final Judgment will preserve competition for the provision of coated freesheet web paper, coated groundwood paper, and label paper in the relevant market identified by the United States. Thus, the proposed Final Judgment would achieve all or substantially all of the relief the United States would have obtained through litigation, but avoids the time, expense, and uncertainty of a full trial on the merits of the Complaint.
The Clayton Act, as amended by the APPA, requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject to a sixty-day comment period, after which the court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment “is in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the Court, in accordance with the statute as amended in 2004, is required to consider:
(A) the competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and
(B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the Complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.
15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(1)(A) & (B).
As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held, under the APPA a court considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations set forth in the government's complaint, whether the decree is sufficiently clear, whether enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether the decree may positively harm third parties.
[t]he balancing of competing social and political interests affected by a proposed antitrust consent decree must be left, in the first instance, to the discretion of the Attorney General. The court's role in protecting the public interest is one of insuring that the government has not breached its duty to the public in consenting to the decree. The court is required to determine not whether a particular decree is the one that will best serve society, but whether the settlement is “
Courts have greater flexibility in approving proposed consent decrees than in crafting their own decrees following a finding of liability in a litigated matter. “[A] proposed decree must be approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose on its own, as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or is `within the reaches of public interest.' ”
Moreover, the court's role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its Complaint, and does not authorize the court to “construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.”
In its 2004 amendments, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of utilizing consent decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding the unambiguous instruction that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.” 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(2);
There are no determinative materials or documents within the meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment.
Respectfully submitted,
WHEREAS, Plaintiff, United States of America, filed its Complaint on December 31, 2014, the United States and defendants, Verso Paper Corp. and NewPage Holdings Inc., by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law;
AND WHEREAS, Defendants agree to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court;
AND WHEREAS, the essence of this Final Judgment is the prompt and certain divestiture of certain rights or assets by the Defendants to assure that competition is not substantially lessened;
AND WHEREAS, the United States requires Defendants to make certain divestitures for the purpose of remedying the loss of competition alleged in the Complaint;
AND WHEREAS, Defendants have represented to the United States that the divestitures required below can and will be made and that Defendants will later raise no claim of hardship or difficulty as grounds for asking the Court to modify any of the divestiture provisions contained below;
NOW THEREFORE, before any testimony is taken, without trial or
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each of the parties to this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against defendants under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. § 18).
As used in this Final Judgment:
A. “Acquirer(s)” means Catalyst or another entity or entities to whom Defendants divest the Divestiture Mills.
B. “Catalyst” means Catalyst Paper Corporation, a Canadian corporation with its headquarters in Richmond, British Columbia, Canada, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
C. “Defendants” means NewPage and Verso.
D. “Divestiture Mills” means NewPage's pulp and paper mill located at 35 Hartford Street, Rumford, Maine 04276 (the “Rumford Mill”); and NewPage's pulp and paper mill located at 621 North Biron Drive, Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin 54495 (the “Biron Mill”) (subject to the exclusions in Section II(D)(3) below), including:
1. All tangible assets necessary to operate, used in or for, or devoted to the Divestiture Mills including, but not limited to, all manufacturing equipment, tooling and fixed assets, real property (leased or owned), personal property, inventory, reserves, office furniture, information technology systems, materials, supplies, and other tangible property and all assets used exclusively in connection with the Divestiture Mills; all licenses, permits and authorizations issued by any governmental organization relating to the Divestiture Mills; all contracts, teaming arrangements, agreements, leases (including renewal rights), commitments, certifications, and understandings relating to the Divestiture Mills, including supply agreements; all customer lists, contracts, accounts, and credit records; all repair and performance records and all other records relating to the Divestiture Mills.
2. All intangible assets necessary to operate, used in or for, or devoted to the Divestiture Mills, including, but not limited to, all patents, licenses and sublicenses, intellectual property, copyrights, trademarks, trade names, service marks, service names, technical information, computer software and related documentation, know-how, trade secrets, drawings, blueprints, designs, design protocols, specifications for materials, specifications for parts and devices, safety procedures for the handling of materials and substances, quality assurance and control procedures, environmental studies and assessments, design tools and simulation capability, all manuals and technical information Defendants provide to their own employees, customers, suppliers, agents or licensees, and all research data concerning historic and current research and development efforts relating to the Divestiture Mills, including, but not limited to, designs of experiments, and the results of successful and unsuccessful designs and experiments.
3. “Divestiture Mills” does not include the Wisconsin Rapids pulp mill, the Consolidated Water Power Company, the Sterling trade name and trademark, and the NewPage Research and Development facility at 300 N. Biron Drive, Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin, 54494.
E. “NewPage” means Defendant NewPage Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Miamisburg, Ohio, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
F. “Verso” means Defendant Verso Paper Corp., a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
A. This Final Judgment applies to Verso and NewPage, as defined above, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise.
B. If, prior to complying with Section IV and V of this Final Judgment, Defendants sell or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of their assets or of lesser business units that include the Divestiture Mills, they shall require the Acquirer(s) to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment. Defendants need not obtain such an agreement from the Acquirer(s) of the assets divested pursuant to this Final Judgment.
A. Defendants are ordered and directed, within ten (10) calendar days after the signing of the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order in this matter, to divest the Divestiture Mills in a manner consistent with this Final Judgment to an Acquirer(s) acceptable to the United States, in its sole discretion. The United States, in its sole discretion, may agree to one or more extensions of this time period not to exceed sixty (60) calendar days in total, and shall notify the Court in such circumstances. Defendants agree to use their best efforts to divest the Divestiture Mills as expeditiously as possible.
B. Defendants must first attempt to sell the Divestiture Mills to Catalyst. In the event that the sale to Catalyst fails, and Defendants attempt to sell the Divestiture Mills to an Acquirer(s) other than Catalyst, Defendants promptly shall make known, by usual and customary means, the availability of the Divestiture Mills for sale. Defendants shall inform any person making inquiry regarding a possible purchase of the Divestiture Mills that they are being divested pursuant to this Final Judgment and provide that person with a copy of this Final Judgment.
C. In accomplishing the divestiture ordered by this Final Judgment, Defendants shall offer to furnish to all prospective Acquirers, subject to customary confidentiality assurances, all information and documents relating to the Divestiture Mills customarily provided in a due diligence process, except such information or documents subject to the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrines. Defendants shall make available such information to the United States at the same time that such information is made available to any other person.
D. Defendants shall permit all prospective Acquirers to have reasonable access to personnel and to make inspections of the physical facilities of the Divestiture Mills; access to any and all environmental, zoning, and other permit documents and information; and access to any and all financial, operational, or other documents and information customarily provided as part of a due diligence process, except such information or documents subject to the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrines.
E. Defendants shall provide the Acquirer(s) of the Divestiture Mills and the United States information relating to the personnel involved in the management, production or sales activities of the Divestiture Mills to enable the Acquirer(s) to make offers of
F. Defendants shall warrant to the Acquirer(s) that each of the Divestiture Mills will be operational on the date of sale.
G. Defendants shall not take any action that will impede in any way the permitting, operation, or divestiture of the Divestiture Mills.
H. At the option of the Acquirer and on terms and conditions acceptable to the United States in its sole discretion, Defendants shall enter into a Supply Agreement for the sale of bleached softwood kraft pulp and a Service Agreement for the provision of waste and wastewater disposal services to the acquirer of the Biron Mill sufficient to meet all or part of the Acquirer's needs. Price under the Supply Agreement shall be set using a methodology consistent with the methodology that Defendants historically have used in setting transfer prices for bleached softwood kraft pulp and waste and wastewater disposal services provided to the Biron Mill (in each case, with appropriate overhead costs removed). Defendants shall designate employees, other than Defendants' senior managers or employees engaged in sales and marketing, to implement any such Supply Agreement and shall prevent disclosure of any confidential, proprietary, or business-sensitive information of the Acquirer(s) to any other employees of Defendants except as necessary to implement the Supply Agreement.
I. At the option of the Acquirer(s) and on terms and conditions acceptable to the United States in its sole discretion, Defendants shall enter into a Transition Services Agreement based upon commercially reasonable terms and conditions. Such an agreement may not exceed twelve (12) months from the date of divestiture except as approved by the United States in its sole discretion. Transition services may include information technology support, information technology licensing, computer operations, data processing, logistics support, wood purchasing, and such other services as reasonably necessary to operate the Divestiture Mills. Any amendments to or modifications of the Transition Services Agreement may only be entered into with the approval of the United States in its sole discretion.
J. Defendants shall warrant to the Acquirer(s) that there are no material defects in the environmental, zoning or other permits pertaining to the operation of each asset, and that following the sale of the Divestiture Mills, Defendants will not undertake, directly or indirectly, any challenges to the environmental, zoning, or other permits relating to the operation of the Divestiture Mills.
K. Unless the United States otherwise consents in writing, the divestiture pursuant to Section IV, or by Divestiture Trustee appointed pursuant to Section V, of this Final Judgment, shall include the entirety of the Divestiture Mills, and shall be accomplished in such a way as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that the Divestiture Mills can and will be used by the Acquirer(s) as part of a viable, ongoing business of the production, distribution and sale of coated freesheet web paper, coated groundwood paper, and cut-and-stack label paper and face sheet for pressure sensitive labels in North America. Divestiture of the Divestiture Mills may be made to one or more Acquirers, provided that in each instance it is demonstrated to the sole satisfaction of the United States that the Divestiture Mills will remain viable and the divestiture of such assets will remedy the competitive harm alleged in the Complaint. The divestitures, whether pursuant to Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment,
(1) shall be made to an Acquirer(s) that, in the United States' sole judgment, has the intent and capability (including the necessary managerial, operational, technical and financial capability) of competing effectively in the business of the production, distribution and sale of coated freesheet web paper, coated groundwood paper, and cut-and-stack label paper and face sheet for pressure sensitive labels; and
(2) shall be accomplished so as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that none of the terms of any agreement between an Acquirer and Defendants gives Defendants the ability unreasonably to raise the costs of the Acquirer(s), to lower the efficiency of the Acquirer(s) or otherwise to interfere in the ability of the Acquirer(s) to compete effectively.
A. If Defendants have not divested the Divestiture Mills within the time period specified in Section IV(A) of this Final Judgment, Defendants shall notify the United States of that fact in writing. Upon application of the United States, the Court shall appoint a Divestiture Trustee selected by the United States and approved by the Court to effect the divestiture of the Divestiture Mills.
B. After the appointment of a Divestiture Trustee becomes effective, only the Divestiture Trustee shall have the right to sell the Divestiture Mills. The Divestiture Trustee shall have the power and authority to accomplish the divestiture to an Acquirer(s) acceptable to the United States at such price and on such terms as are then obtainable upon reasonable effort by the Divestiture Trustee, subject to the provisions of Sections IV, V, and VI of this Final Judgment, and shall have such other powers as this Court deems appropriate. Subject to Section V(D), the Divestiture Trustee may hire, at the expense of Defendants, any investment bankers, attorneys, or other agents, who shall be solely accountable to the Divestiture Trustee, reasonably necessary in the Divestiture Trustee's judgment to assist in the divestiture. Any such investment bankers, attorneys, or other agents shall serve on such terms and conditions as the United States approves including confidentiality requirements and conflict of interest certifications.
C. Defendants shall not object to a sale by the Divestiture Trustee on any ground other than the Divestiture Trustee's malfeasance. Any such objections by Defendants must be conveyed in writing to the United States and the Divestiture Trustee within ten (10) calendar days after the Divestiture Trustee has provided the notice required under Section VI of this Final Judgment.
D. The Divestiture Trustee shall serve at the expense of Defendants pursuant to a written agreement, on such terms and conditions as the United States approves, including confidentiality requirements and conflict of interest certifications. The Divestiture Trustee shall account for all monies derived from the sale of the assets sold by the Divestiture Trustee and all costs and expenses so incurred. After approval by the Court of the Divestiture Trustee's accounting, including fees for its services yet unpaid and those of any professionals and agents retained by the Divestiture Trustee, all remaining money shall be paid to Defendants and the trust shall then be terminated. The compensation of the Divestiture Trustee and any professionals and agents retained by the Divestiture Trustee shall be reasonable in light of the value of the Divestiture Mills and based on a fee arrangement providing the Divestiture Trustee with an incentive based on the price and terms of the divestiture and
E. Defendants shall use their best efforts to assist the Divestiture Trustee in accomplishing the required divestiture. The Divestiture Trustee and any consultants, accountants, attorneys, and other agents retained by the Divestiture Trustee shall have full and complete access to the personnel, books, records, and facilities of the business to be divested, and Defendants shall develop financial and other information relevant to such business as the Divestiture Trustee may reasonably request, subject to reasonable protection for trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information or any applicable privileges. Defendants shall take no action to interfere with or to impede the Divestiture Trustee's accomplishment of the divestiture.
F. After its appointment, the Divestiture Trustee shall file monthly reports with the United States and, as appropriate, the Court, setting forth the Divestiture Trustee's efforts to accomplish the divestiture ordered under this Final Judgment. To the extent such reports contain information that the Divestiture Trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. Such reports shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding month, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture Mills, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person. The Divestiture Trustee shall maintain full records of all efforts made to divest the Divestiture Mills.
G. If the Divestiture Trustee has not accomplished the divestiture ordered under this Final Judgment within six (6) months after its appointment, the Divestiture Trustee shall promptly file with the Court a report setting forth (1) the Divestiture Trustee's efforts to accomplish the required divestiture, (2) the reasons, in the Divestiture Trustee's judgment, why the required divestiture has not been accomplished, and (3) the Divestiture Trustee's recommendations. To the extent such report contains information that the Divestiture Trustee deems confidential, such report shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. The Divestiture Trustee shall at the same time furnish such report to the United States, which shall have the right to make additional recommendations consistent with the purpose of the trust. The Court thereafter shall enter such orders as it shall deem appropriate to carry out the purpose of the Final Judgment, which may, if necessary, include extending the trust and the term of the Divestiture Trustee's appointment by a period requested by the United States.
H. If the United States determines that the Divestiture Trustee has ceased to act or failed to act diligently or in a reasonably cost-effective manner, it may recommend the Court appoint a substitute Divestiture Trustee.
A. If the divestitures required herein are not made to Catalyst under the terms of a definitive divestiture agreement previously submitted to the United States, then within two (2) business days following execution of a definitive divestiture agreement, Defendants or the Divestiture Trustee, whichever is then responsible for effecting the divestiture required herein, shall notify the United States of any proposed divestiture required by Section IV or V of this Final Judgment. If the Divestiture Trustee is responsible, it shall similarly notify Defendants. The notice shall set forth the details of the proposed divestiture and list the name, address, and telephone number of each person not previously identified who offered or expressed an interest in or desire to acquire any ownership interest in the Divestiture Mills, together with full details of the same.
B. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt by the United States of such notice, the United States may request from Defendants, the proposed Acquirer(s), any other third party, or the Divestiture Trustee, if applicable, additional information concerning the proposed divestiture, the proposed Acquirer(s), and any other potential Acquirer(s). Defendants and the Divestiture Trustee shall furnish any additional information requested, except such information or documents subject to the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, within fifteen (15) calendar days of the receipt of the request, unless the parties shall otherwise agree.
C. Within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the notice or within twenty (20) calendar days after the United States has been provided the additional information requested from Defendants, the proposed Acquirer(s), any third party, and the Divestiture Trustee, whichever is later, the United States shall provide written notice to Defendants and the Divestiture Trustee, if there is one, stating whether or not it objects to the proposed divestiture. If the United States provides written notice that it does not object, the divestiture may be consummated, subject only to Defendants' limited right to object to the sale under Section V(C) of this Final Judgment. Absent written notice that the United States does not object to the proposed Acquirer(s) or upon objection by the United States, a divestiture proposed under Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment shall not be consummated. Upon objection by Defendants under Section V(C), a divestiture proposed under Section V shall not be consummated unless approved by the Court. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section VI, the United States, in its sole discretion, may withhold its approval of the proposed divestiture of a single Divestiture Mill until such time as the United States concludes that it can approve an Acquirer(s) for both Divestiture Mills consistent with the terms of the Final Judgment.
Defendants shall not finance all or any part of any purchase made pursuant to Section IV or V of this Final Judgment.
Until the divestiture required by this Final Judgment has been accomplished, Defendants shall take all steps necessary to comply with the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order entered by this Court. Defendants shall take no action that would jeopardize the divestiture ordered by this Court.
A. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, and every thirty (30) calendar days thereafter until the divestiture has been completed under Section IV or V of this Final Judgment, Defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit as to the fact and manner of its compliance with Section IV or V. Each such affidavit shall include the name,
B. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, Defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit that describes in reasonable detail all actions Defendants have taken and all steps Defendants have implemented on an ongoing basis to comply with Section VIII of this Final Judgment. Defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit describing any changes to the efforts and actions outlined in Defendants' earlier affidavits filed pursuant to this section within fifteen (15) calendar days after the change is implemented.
C. Defendants shall keep all records of all efforts made to preserve and divest the Divestiture Mills until one year after such divestiture has been completed.
A. Upon application of the United States, the Court shall appoint a Monitoring Trustee selected by the United States and approved by the Court.
B. The Monitoring Trustee shall have the power and authority to monitor Defendants' compliance with the terms of this Final Judgment and the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order entered by this Court, and shall have such other powers as this Court deems appropriate. The Monitoring Trustee shall be required to investigate and report on the Defendants' compliance with this Final Judgment and the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order and the Defendants' progress toward effectuating the purposes of this Final Judgment, including, but not limited to, any breach or other problem that arises under any Supply Agreement or Transition Services Agreement that may adversely affect the accomplishment of the purposes of this Final Judgment, the reasons for such breach or problem, and recommended remedies.
C. Subject to Section X(E) of this Final Judgment, the Monitoring Trustee may hire at the cost and expense of Defendants any consultants, accountants, attorneys, or other agents, who shall be solely accountable to the Monitoring Trustee, reasonably necessary in the Monitoring Trustee's judgment. Any such consultants, accountants, attorneys, or other agents shall serve on such terms and conditions as the United States approves including confidentiality requirements and conflict of interest certifications.
D. Defendants shall not object to actions taken by the Monitoring Trustee in fulfillment of the Monitoring Trustee's responsibilities under any Order of this Court on any ground other than the Monitoring Trustee's malfeasance. Any such objections by Defendants must be conveyed in writing to the United States and the Monitoring Trustee within ten (10) calendar days after the action taken by the Monitoring Trustee giving rise to Defendants' objection.
E. The Monitoring Trustee shall serve at the cost and expense of Defendants pursuant to a written agreement with Defendants and on such terms and conditions as the United States approves, including confidentiality requirements and conflict of interest certifications. The compensation of the Monitoring Trustee and any consultants, accountants, attorneys, and other agents retained by the Monitoring Trustee shall be on reasonable and customary terms commensurate with the individuals' experience and responsibilities. If the Monitoring Trustee and Defendants are unable to reach agreement on the Monitoring Trustee's or any agents' or consultants' compensation or other terms and conditions of engagement within fourteen (14) calendar days of appointment of the Monitoring Trustee, the United States may, in its sole discretion, take appropriate action, including making a recommendation to the Court. The Monitoring Trustee shall, within three (3) business days of hiring any consultants, accountants, attorneys, or other agents, provide written notice of such hiring and the rate of compensation to Defendants and the United States.
F. The Monitoring Trustee shall have no responsibility or obligation for the operation of Defendants' businesses.
G. Defendants shall use their best efforts to assist the Monitoring Trustee in monitoring Defendants' compliance with their individual obligations under this Final Judgment and under the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order. The Monitoring Trustee and any consultants, accountants, attorneys, and other agents retained by the Monitoring Trustee shall have full and complete access to the personnel, books, records, and facilities relating to compliance with this Final Judgment, subject to reasonable protection for trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information or any applicable privileges. Defendants shall take no action to interfere with or impede the Monitoring Trustee's accomplishment of its responsibilities.
H. After its appointment, the Monitoring Trustee shall file reports monthly for the first year and at the end of each year thereafter, or more frequently as needed, with the United States, and, as appropriate, the Court, setting forth Defendants' efforts to comply with their obligations under this Final Judgment and under the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order. To the extent such reports contain information that the Monitoring Trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court.
I. The Monitoring Trustee shall serve for two years. The Monitoring Trustee's term may be extended for one (1) additional year, in the sole discretion of the United States.
J. If the United States determines that the Monitoring Trustee has ceased to act or failed to act diligently or in a reasonably cost-effective manner, it may recommend that the Court appoint a substitute Monitoring Trustee.
A. For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or of any related orders such as the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, or of determining whether the Final Judgment should be modified or vacated, and subject to any legally recognized privilege, from time to time authorized representatives of the United States Department of Justice, including consultants and other persons retained by the United States, shall, upon written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, and on reasonable notice to Defendants, be permitted:
(1) access during Defendants' office hours to inspect and copy, or at the option of the United States, to require Defendants to provide hard copies or electronic copies of all books, ledgers, accounts, records, data, and documents in the possession, custody, or control of
(2) to interview, either informally or on the record, Defendants' officers, employees, or agents, who may have their individual counsel present, regarding such matters. The interviews shall be subject to the reasonable convenience of the interviewee and without restraint or interference by Defendants.
B. Upon the written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, Defendants shall submit written reports or response to written interrogatories, under oath if requested, relating to any of the matters contained in this Final Judgment as may be requested.
C. No information or documents obtained by the means provided in this section shall be divulged by the United States to any person other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of the United States, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United States is a party (including grand jury proceedings), or for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law.
D. If at the time information or documents are furnished by Defendants to the United States, Defendants represent and identify in writing the material in any such information or documents to which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(1)(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Defendants mark each pertinent page of such material, “Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(1)(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” then the United States shall give Defendants ten (10) calendar days notice prior to divulging such material in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding).
Defendants may not reacquire any part of the Divestiture Mills during the term of this Final Judgment.
This Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this Final Judgment to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions.
Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment shall expire ten (10) years from the date of its entry.
The parties have complied with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16, including making copies available to the public of this Final Judgment, the Competitive Impact Statement, and any comments thereon and the United States' responses to comments. Based upon the record before the Court, which includes the Competitive Impact Statement and any comments and response to comments filed with the Court, entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.
Court approval subject to procedures of Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Secretary of Labor has determined that the renewal of the Advisory Committee on Apprenticeship is necessary and in the public interest. The Department of Labor intends to renew the ACA Charter with revisions. The revisions are not intended to change the purpose or the Committee's original intent. The revisions are a routine updating of the Charter to ensure closer alignment with the Department's current apprenticeship expansion goals.
The Designated Federal Official, Mr. John V. Ladd, Administrator, Office of Apprenticeship, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-5311, Washington, DC 20210, Telephone: (202) 693-2796 (this is not a toll-free number).
Registered Apprenticeship is a unique public private partnership that is highly dependent on the engagement and involvement of its stakeholders and partners for its ongoing operational effectiveness. Apart from the ACA, there is no single organization or group with the broad representation of labor, employers, and the public available to consider the complexities and relationship of apprenticeship activities to other training efforts or to provide advice on such matters to the Secretary. It is particularly important to have such considerations at this time in light of the current national interest in apprenticeship and the Department of Labor's goal to double the number of apprentices across the country, in the next five years by expanding into a variety of non-traditional industries. The ACA's insight and recommendations on the best ways to grow apprenticeship to meet the emerging skill needs of employers is critical. For these reasons, the Secretary of Labor has determined that the renewal of a national advisory committee on apprenticeship is necessary and in the public interest. The ACA Charter is being renewed to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary on the following: (1) The development and implementation of policies, legislation and regulations affecting the National Registered Apprenticeship system; (2) strategies that can expand the use of the Registered Apprenticeship model in non-traditional industries such as, but not limited to, Transportation/Logistics, Healthcare, Energy, Advanced Manufacturing, and Information Technology and Communications; (3) ways to more effectively partner with the public workforce system and educational institutions and communities to leverage Registered Apprenticeship as a valued post-secondary credential; including policies related to the Registered Apprenticeship College Consortium; (4) the development of career pathways that can lead to good jobs for everyone and sustained employment for new and incumbent workers, youth, Veterans, women, minorities and other under-utilized and disadvantaged populations; and (5) efforts to improve performance, quality and oversight, and utilization of the National Registered Apprenticeship system. The current ACA Charter will expire on January 15, 2017. The ACA's Charter is required to be renewed every two years. Since the Charter was last renewed in January 2013, it has been revised in three sections to ensure alignment with departmental priorities. The following three sections have been
1.
2.
3.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Inorganic Arsenic Standard (29 CFR part 1910.1018).
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by March 16, 2015.
Theda Kenney, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The information collection requirements in the Inorganic Arsenic Standard provide protection for workers from the adverse health effects associated with exposure to inorganic arsenic. The Inorganic Arsenic Standard requires employers to: Monitor workers' exposure to inorganic arsenic and notify workers of exposure-monitoring results; notify anyone who cleans protective clothing or equipment of inorganic arsenic exposure; develop, update and
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 an adjustment of 14,728 burden hours (from 637 to 15,365 hours) primarily due to the Agency's identification and inclusion of 688 covered coal-fired electric power plant establishments (including cogenerators) and workers at these establishments. The operation and maintenance cost increased from $54,197 to $1,078,069 due to the increase in establishments and workers, and also in the cost of exposure monitoring samples, medical examinations and chest x-rays. The Agency makes the new assumption that personal breathing zone samples, collected by a contract industrial hygienist and analyzed by a contract laboratory, will be used instead of vapor badges for exposure monitoring under 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
Notice.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data is provided in the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized; collection instruments are clearly understood; and the impact of collection requirements on respondents is properly assessed. Currently, the NEA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection of an NEA applicant survey. A copy of the current information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the address section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the address section below within 60 days from the date of this publication 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
• Could help minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond.
Send comments to Jillian Miller, Director, Office of Guidelines and Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, at:
The National Science Board's
Wednesday, January 21, 2015, at 3:00 p.m. EST
Consideration of nominations for honorary awards.
Closed.
This meeting will be held by teleconference originating at the National Science Board Office, National Science Foundation, 4201Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
Please refer to the National Science Board Web site (
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a scheduling exemption in response to a December 10, 2013 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML13345B157), request from Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC or the licensee) for a one-time exemption from the requirement to exercise its offsite emergency plan biennially with full participation by each authority having a role under the radiological response plan. The request was supplemented by letter dated June 13, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14164A328). A series of deadly tornadoes struck Illinois 3 days prior to the scheduled exercise at the Byron Station. Because of the major involvement of the State of Illinois resources in response to the tornadoes, the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA), with the agreement of the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), decided to postpone participation in the Byron Station exercise from 2013 to early 2014, which is outside of the NRC's biennial requirement.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0002 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Joel S. Wiebe, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-6606, email:
The following sections include the text of the exemption in its entirety as issued to EGC.
The licensee is the holder of Facility Operating License Nos., NPF-37 and NPF-66, issued under Title 10 of the
Per 10 CFR 50.12, “specific exemptions,” the Commission may grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 which: (1) Are authorized by law, (2) will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and (3) are consistent with the common defense and security. The Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances as described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) are present. Special circumstances are present whenever, among other things, application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule; or the exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation.
Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.c requires that “[o]ffsite plans for each site shall be exercised biennially with full participation by each offsite authority having a role under the radiological response plan.” Full participation when used in conjunction
The Byron Station biennial exercise with full participation was scheduled for November 20, 2013. On November 17, 2013, 3 days before the exercise, a series of tornadoes struck Illinois and caused significant widespread damage throughout the state resulting in a Presidential Disaster Declaration for 15 Illinois counties. On November 18, 2013, due to the magnitude of the State and local disaster response, and its impact on resources, IEMA verbally notified FEMA that they would request postponement of participation in the Byron Station Radiological Emergency Preparedness biennial exercise.
The onsite portion and some aspects of the offsite portions of the exercise were conducted by the licensee and inspected by the NRC on November 20, 2013. Since the State was not able to participate in the exercise, Ogle and Winnebago Counties did not perform their required interface functions. Therefore, the counties did not fully participate in the exercise.
In a letter to FEMA dated December 2, 2013 (Attachment 2; ADAMS Accession No. ML13345B157), IEMA requested that FEMA postpone the exercise until calendar year (CY) 2014, citing the magnitude of the State's disaster response to the series of deadly tornadoes. By letter dated December 7, 2013 (Attachment 3; ADAMS Accession No. ML13345B157), FEMA agreed to the IEMA request to postpone the offsite portions of the biennial exercise until CY 2014.
The licensee requested on December 10, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13345B157), pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, approval of a one-time exemption from 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.c. The requested exemption would allow the licensee to delay conduct of certain offsite portions of a biennial EP exercise from November 23, 2013, to February 2014.
The licensee stated in their request that the IEMA and the Ogle and Winnebago Counties have indicated that it was not feasible to reschedule the specific offsite functions that remain to be exercised prior to the end of CY 2013.
The postponed aspects at the offsite portions of the exercise were conducted by the licensee on February 6, 2014, and were evaluated by FEMA.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the Commission may grant exemptions which are, among other things, authorized by law. It may be inferred that an exemption is authorized by law if all of the conditions for granting the exemption are met (
In addition, the NRC staff must determine whether the exemption would violate the Atomic Energy Act, National Environmental Policy Act, or other law. In this case, the exemption removes for purposes of the 2013 exercise the requirement in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.c, to conduct the exercise biennially. The frequency is not specified by any law and the NRC staff has not identified any legal prohibition to the exemption. The change from annual to biennial exercise frequency was a result of rulemaking in 1984 (Final Rule, Emergency Planning and Preparedness (49 FR 27733-35; July 6, 1984)), when after considering: (1) Experience with 150 exercises; (2) the fact that State and local governments exercise their emergency response capabilities frequently by responding to a variety of actual emergencies on a continuing basis; (3) the flexibility provided in a biennial frequency; and (4) FEMA's experiences showing the level of preparedness of State and local governments. Accordingly, the NRC staff has determined that granting of the licensee's proposed scheduling exemption is authorized by law.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the Commission may grant exemptions which, among other things, will not present an undue risk to public health and safety. In other words, granting the exemption does not make it more likely that an accident could adversely affect the health and safety of the public. In 1984 (Final Rule, Emergency Planning and Preparedness (49 FR 27733-35; July 6, 1984)), when the Commission changed the exercise frequency from annual to biennial, the Commission considered whether increasing the time between exercises would result in making personnel and equipment less effective or reliable and therefore reduce the level of safety. The Commission concluded that “Because emergency response personnel at the State and local government level continuously respond to actual emergencies, the Commission does not consider that relaxing the frequency of State and local government participation in emergency preparedness exercises would adversely affect the health and safety of the public.” Since the last biennial EP exercise on July 27, 2011, the licensee has conducted 47 onsite training drills/exercises/demonstrations and 34 offsite training sessions that have involved interface with State and/or local authorities. These drills and training sessions did not exercise all of the proposed rescheduled offsite functions, but they do support the licensee's assertion that it has a continuing level of engagement with the State and local authorities to maintain interfaces. The NRC staff considers the intent of this requirement is met by having conducted these series of drills and training sessions. Additionally, since the July 27, 2011, Byron Station exercise, the IEMA has satisfactorily participated in three full participation FEMA evaluated exercises at other Illinois EGC plants in Illinois. By letter dated June 13, 2014, the licensee stated that the proposed exemption is not a reduction in effectiveness of the Byron Station emergency plan.
Based on the above information showing the extent of the State and local authority participation in training and level of coordination with the licensee, the NRC Staff concludes that the one-time exemption to delay portions of the biennial EP exercise at the Byron Station poses no undue risk to public health and safety.
The requested exemption would allow rescheduling of the specific offsite portions of the biennial EP exercise from the previously scheduled date of November 20, 2013, until February 2014. Even with the exemption granted, the Byron Station will continue to be required to meet the substantial terms and conditions in the licenses. The exemption merely allows for a delay of some portions of an emergency response exercise, with no direct impact on regulations and requirements associated with common defense and security. Therefore, the granting of the exemption
The Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. Special circumstances, per 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present when “Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.” Section IV.F.2.c of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, requires licensees to exercise offsite plans biennially with full or partial participation by each offsite authority having a role under the plan. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.c, requiring licensees to exercise offsite plans with offsite authority participation, is to test and maintain interfaces among affected State and local authorities, and the licensee. The circumstances at Byron Station show that maintaining the requirement to perform the biennial test during 2013 is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule because, as described below, the offsite responders' capabilities and interface with the licensee have been tested.
Although no NRC findings were identified at the previous biennial EP exercise conducted on July 27, 2011, FEMA did identify two Areas Requiring Corrective Actions (ARCAs). The State of Illinois received an ARCA under Evaluation Area 2, “Radiological Assessment and Protective Action Recommendations and Decisions for the Plume Phase of the Emergency” from FEMA. This ARCA was demonstrated successfully and closed by FEMA for the State of Illinois during the Clinton Power Station exercise on November 2, 2011. In addition, Ogle County received an ARCA under Evaluation Area 3, “Implementation of Protective Actions for Special Populations, School Evacuation.” Training was conducted with the Ogle County Regional Office of Education, EGC, and the State of Illinois to resolve this issue. This ARCA was expected to be resolved during the November 20, 2013. As previously discussed, the licensee has conducted 47 onsite training drills/exercises/demonstrations and 34 offsite training sessions that have involved interface with State and/or local authorities in 2011 through 2013. The NRC staff considers that these measures are adequate to test and maintain interfaces with affected State and local authorities during this period, satisfying the underlying purpose of the rule. Thus, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) are present in that application of the biennial test requirement during 2013 is not necessary to achieve the purpose of the rule.
There is an additional special circumstance present under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v). Specifically, the exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation, but the scheduled exercise was interrupted by tornadoes. The requested exemption to conduct the specific offsite portions of the biennial EP exercise in early 2014, instead of 2013, would grant only temporary relief from the applicable regulation until the end of February 2014. The 47 onsite training drills/exercises/demonstrations involving interface with State and local authorities conducted in 2011, 2012, and 2013, demonstrate the licensee's good faith efforts to comply with the regulation. In addition, the licensee's inability to meet the Appendix E requirement was due to circumstances beyond its control (
Based on the above, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) and (v), exist to grant the requested exemption.
The Commission has found that issuing an exemption to the requirements of a regulation does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment provided that 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25) is met in that: (i) There is no significant hazards consideration; (ii) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (iii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; (iv) there is no significant construction impact; (v) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and (vi) the requirements from which an exemption is sought involve, among other things, scheduling requirements.
An exemption involves no significant hazards consideration under 10 CFR 50.92(c) if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed exemption 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.
The proposed exemption to postpone the Byron Station EP exercise from November 23, 2013, to February 2014, does not increase the probability of an accident because EP exercises are not initiators of any design-basis event. Additionally, the proposed exemption does not involve any physical changes to plant systems, structures, or components (SSCs), or the manner in which these SSCs are maintained or controlled. Therefore, the proposed exemption does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed exemption does not alter the physical design, safety limits, or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation of Byron Station. Accordingly, the proposed exemption does not introduce any new accident initiators, nor does it reduce or adversely affect the capabilities of any plant structure or system in the performance of their safety function. Therefore, the proposed exemption does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. The proposed exemption does not impact the assumptions of any design basis accident, and does not alter assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient event. Therefore, the proposed exemption does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Accordingly, the NRC staff has determined that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied, and the exemption request involves no significant hazards consideration, and 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i) is satisfied.
In reviewing the other factors in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), the NRC staff determined that the proposed exemption changes the EP exercise from November 23, 2013, to February 2014, involves no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure; construction impact; and increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological
The NRC staff has further determined that the requirements from which the exemption is sought involve the factors associated with 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(G) scheduling requirements. Specifically, the proposed exemption changes the EP exercise from November 23, 2013, to February 2014. Therefore, the criteria specified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(G) is satisfied. Accordingly, the exemption meets the eligibility criteria for exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment is required to be prepared with the issuance of the exemption.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(ii) and (v), are present. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(ii) and (v), the Commission hereby grants EGC a one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.c., to conduct the specific offsite portion of the Byron Station biennial EP exercise required for 2013. The one-time exemption permits the specific offsite portion of the exercise to be conducted in coordination with FEMA, NRC Region III, and Byron Station as scheduled in February 2014. As noted above, the postponed aspects at the offsite portions of the exercise were conducted by the licensee on February 6, 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Request for comment and public meeting.
On December 23, 2014, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received the Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) and the Site-Specific Decommissioning Cost Estimate (DCE) dated December 19, 2014, for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY). The PSDAR, which includes the DCE, provides an overview of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee), planned decommissioning activities, schedule, projected costs, and environmental impacts for VY. The NRC is requesting public comments on Entergy's PSDAR and DCE and will hold a public meeting to discuss the PSDAR and DCE.
Submit comments by March 23, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
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
James Kim, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-4125, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0004 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-2015-0004 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 that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts 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 submissions into ADAMS.
Entergy is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-28. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the NRC
By letter dated September 23, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13273A204), Entergy submitted Notification of Permanent Cessation of Power Operations for VY. In this letter, Entergy provided notification to the NRC of its intent to permanently cease power operation at the end of the current operating cycle, which is expected to occur in the fourth calendar quarter of 2014. In addition, Entergy indicated their intent to supplement the letter certifying the date on which operations have ceased, or will cease, in accordance with § 50.82(a)(1)(i) of Title 10 of the
On December 19, 2014, Entergy submitted the PSDAR and DCE for VY in accordance with § 50.82(a)(4)(i) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14357A110). The PSDAR includes a description of the planned decommissioning activities, a proposed schedule for their accomplishment, the site-specific DCE (submitted concurrently), and a discussion that provides the basis for concluding that the environmental impacts associated with the site-specific decommissioning activities will be bounded by appropriate, previously issued generic and plant-specific environmental impact statements.
The NRC is requesting public comments on the PSDAR and DCE for VY. The NRC will conduct a public meeting to discuss the PSDAR and DCE and receive comments on Wednesday, February 19, 2015, from 6 p.m. until 9 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, at the Quality Inn, 1380 Putney Road, Brattleboro, VT 05301. For additional information regarding the meeting, see the NRC's Public Meeting Schedule Web site at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection (ICR) 3206-0245, Request for Change to Unreduced Annuity. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until February 13, 2015. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
RI 20-120 is designed to collect information the Office of Personnel Management needs to comply with the wishes of the retired Federal employee whose marriage has ended. This form provides an organized way for the retiree to give us everything at one time.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend IM-5050-6 to BOX Rule 5050 (Short Term Option Series Program) to extend current $0.50 strike price intervals in non-index options to short term options with strike prices less than $100. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend IM-5050-6 to BOX Rule 5050 to extend current $0.50 strike price intervals in non-index options to short term options with strike prices less than $100. This is a competitive filing that is based on a proposal recently submitted by the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE”).
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules governing the Short Term Option Series Program to introduce finer strike price intervals for certain short term options. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend IM-5050-6 to extend $0.50 strike price intervals in non-index options to short term options with strike prices less than $100 instead of the current $75. This proposed change is intended to eliminate gapped strikes between $75 and $100 that result from conflicting strike price parameters under the Short Term Option Series and $2.50 Strike Price Programs as described in more detail below.
Under the Exchange's rules, the Exchange may list short term options in up to fifty option classes in addition to option classes that are selected by other securities exchanges that employ a similar program under their respective rules.
The Exchange also operates a $2.50 Strike Price Program that permits the Exchange to select up to sixty options classes on individual stocks to trade in $2.50 strike price intervals, in addition to option classes selected by other securities exchanges that employ a similar program under their respective rules.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
During the month prior to expiration, the Exchange is permitted to list related monthly option contracts in the narrower strike price intervals available for short term option series.
The Short Term Option Series Program has been well-received by market participants and the Exchange believes that introducing finer strike price intervals for short term options with strike prices between $75 and $100, and thereby eliminating the gapped strikes described above, will benefit these market participants by giving them more flexibility to closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that its 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 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to a filing submitted by ISE.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange stated that waiver of this requirement will ensure fair competition among exchanges by allowing the Exchange to extend the $0.50 strike price intervals currently allowed for short term options with strike prices less than $75 to short term options with strike prices less than $100 contemporaneously with ISE. For this reason, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change presents no novel issues and that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest; and will allow the Exchange to remain competitive with other exchanges. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 967NY (Price Protection) and to adopt Rule 967.1NY to provide price protection for Market Maker quotes. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 967NY and to adopt Rule 967.1NY to provide price protection for Market Maker quotes. The Exchange currently offers price protection mechanisms for orders and, at this time, is proposing to expand its mechanisms to make price protection available for Market Maker quotes as well. The Exchange believes that this proposed enhancement would assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by averting the risk of Market Maker quotes sweeping through multiple price points resulting in executions at prices that are through the last sale price or National Best Bid or Best Offer (“NBBO”) and potentially erroneous.
Rule 967NY, which applies solely to orders, affords price protection to orders priced a specified percentage through the prevailing contra-side market.
To further enhance the price protection functionality available on the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to adopt a new rule, Rule 967.1NY, that would provide for a price protection mechanism for quotes entered by a Market Maker. To be clear that the proposed rule is for Market Maker quotes only, and consistent with the proposed change to the title for Rule 967NY, the Exchange proposes to title this new rule “Price Protection—Quotes.” In addition, Rule 967.1NY(a) would provide that the proposed price protection filters would be applicable only for quotes entered by a Market Maker pursuant to Rule 925.1NY and would not be applicable to orders entered by a Market Maker.
To take into consideration the unique role of Market Makers to enter two-sided quotations in their appointments, the Exchange proposes to provide for two layers of price protection that would be applicable to all incoming Market Maker quotes. As discussed in detail below, the first layer of price protection would assess incoming sell quotes against the National Best Bid (“NBB”) and incoming buy quotes against the National Best Offer (“NBO”). The second layer of price protection would assess the price of call or put bids against a specified benchmark.
Proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(1) would set forth the Exchange's proposed NBBO price reasonability check, which would compare Market Maker bids with the NBO and Market Maker offers with the NBB. This proposed price protection is [sic] mechanism is similar to the Limit Order Filter. Specifically, provided that an NBBO is available, a Market Maker quote would be rejected if it is priced a specified dollar amount or percentage through the contra-side NBBO as follows:
(A) $1.00 for Market Maker bids when the contra-side NBO is priced at or below $1.00; or
(B) 50% for Market Maker bids (offers) when the contra-side NBO (NBB) is priced above $1.00.
The Exchange would reject inbound Market Maker quotes that exceed the parameters set forth in proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(1)(A)-(B) as presumptively erroneous. The Exchange believes that the proposed percentages are appropriate because they are based on the percentages already approved for the Limit Order Filter and are thus calibrated to enable the Exchange to reject quotes that otherwise may cause price dislocation before the erroneous quotes could cause harm to the market. The Exchange is also proposing a specific dollar threshold for when the
In addition, pursuant to proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(1)(A), Market Maker offers that arrive when the NBB is priced at or below $1.00 would not be subject to this filter. The Exchange believes that when the NBB is priced at or below $1.00, the price of an offer would be bound by $0.00, and therefore an offer would always be less than $1.00 away from the NBB. Such offer prices would likely not be erroneous and therefore the Exchange does not believe it necessary to reject such Market Maker offers.
Because there may be market scenarios that require the proposed parameters to be adjusted, for example, during periods of extreme price volatility, the Exchange further proposes to specify that the Exchange may revise these parameters, provided such revised parameters are announced to ATP Holders via a Trader Update.
As an additional safeguard and risk-control feature, if a Market Maker quote is rejected pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this proposed Rule, the Exchange would also cancel any resting same-side quote in the affected series from that Market Maker.
The following examples, which are based on the below market scenario, illustrate how the proposed Rule 967.1NY(a) would operate:
Proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(2) and (3) would set forth the Exchange's proposed second layer of price protection filters for Market Maker quotes. These price protection mechanisms would be applicable when either there is no NBBO available, for example, during pre-opening or prior to conducting a re-opening after a trading halt, or if the NBBO is so wide as to not to reflect an appropriate price for the respective options series.
Proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(2) would provide price protection for Market Maker bids in call options. As proposed, if such bids equal or exceed the price of the underlying security, the Market Maker bid would be rejected.
As proposed in new Rule 967.1NY(a)(2)(A), before the underlying security is open, the Exchange would use the previous day's closing price to determine the price of the underlying security. The Exchange proposes to use the prior day's closing price because, although the underlying securities may trade in the equities markets outside of 9:30 a.m. ET to 4:00 p.m. ET, the equities market is generally not as liquid during this time and equity market makers generally do not have quoting obligations in after-hours trading. Therefore, the Exchange believes that using the previous day's closing price—based on trading during Core Trading Hours, when the market is most liquid—provides a more accurate benchmark and thus a more precise price protection filter for underlying securities that have not yet opened. Per proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(2)(B), once the underlying security has opened, the Exchange would use the consolidated last sale price to determine the price of the underlying security. Per proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(2)(C), during a trading halt of the underlying security, the Exchange would use the consolidated last sale
Proposed Rule 967.1NY(a)(3) would provide for price protection for Market Maker bids in put options. The value of a put can never exceed the strike price of the option, even if the stock goes to zero. For example, a put with a strike price of $50 gives the holder the right to sell the underlying security for $50 (no more, or no less), therefore it would be illogical to pay more than $50 for the right to sell that underlying security, no matter what the price of the underlying security. As proposed, the Exchange would deem any put bid that equals or exceeds the strike price of the option series to be erroneous and the Exchange believes it would be appropriate to reject such bids.
As an additional safeguard and risk control feature, when a Market Maker quote is rejected pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this Rule, the Exchange would also cancel all resting quote(s) in the affected class(es) from that Market Maker and shall not accept new quote(s) in the affected class(es) until the Market Maker submits a message (which may be automated) to the Exchange to enable the entry of new quotes.
Consider the following examples which are based on the following:
The Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the Exchange's price protection functionality to Market Maker quotes would assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by averting the risk of Market Maker quotes sweeping through multiple price points resulting in executions at prices that are through the last sale price or NBBO and potentially erroneous. The Exchange notes that it retains the ability to disable these price protection features in response to market events.
The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change via Trader Update. The Trader Update will be issued at least 30 days prior to implementation to help ensure participants, in particular Market Makers, have sufficient notice prior to introducing the new functionality.
The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that this proposal meets these requirements because it would assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market by introducing new price protections that would help to mitigate the risks associated with the entry of quotes that are priced a specified dollar amount or percentage through the last sale or prevailing contra-side market, which the Exchange believes is evidence of error. By rejecting such quotes, the Exchange believes it is promoting just and equitable principles of trade by preventing potential price dislocation that could result from erroneous Market Maker quotes sweeping through multiple price points resulting in executions at prices that are through the last sale price or NBBO. Specifically, when an NBBO is available, the Exchange believes rejecting Market Maker quotes priced a specified dollar amount or percentage through the contra-side NBBO would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and protect investors and the public interest because it would enable the Exchange to avoid the submission of erroneous quotes that otherwise may cause price dislocation before such quotes could cause harm to the market.
The Exchange believes that proposed percentages are reasonable as they are based on the percentages already approved for the Limit Order Filter. In addition, the Exchange believes that the addition of specified dollar thresholds when the NBO is equal to or below $1.00 is consistent with the Act because it would assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market by offering Market Maker quotes more precise price protection. Moreover, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to place no limit on Market Maker offers that arrive when the NBB is priced at or below $1.00 because when the NBB is priced at or below $1.00, the price of an offer would be bound by $0.00, and therefore an offer would always be less than $1.00 away from the NBB—and therefore, not likely to be erroneous and not requiring price protection.
Similarly, the Exchange also believes that when no NBBO is available, the Exchange's proposed use of benchmarks to check the reasonability of Market Maker bids for call and put options would assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market by affording a second layer of price protection to Market Maker quotes. The Exchange believes these additional price reasonability checks on Market Maker bids would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and protect investors and the public interest because the proposed check would reject Market Maker bids that are priced higher than the corresponding benchmark, which would be the price of the underlying security for call options and the strike price for put options.
The Exchange also believes the additional risk controls that result in the cancellation of a Market Maker's resting
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposal would not unduly burden any particular group of market participants trading on the Exchange vis-à-vis another group (
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.60 (Price Protection) and to adopt Rule 6.61, which was previously Reserved, to provide price protection for Market Maker quotes. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 6.60 (Price Protection) and to adopt Rule 6.61, which was previously Reserved, to provide price protection for Market Maker quotes. The Exchange currently offers price protection mechanisms for orders and, at this time, is proposing to expand its mechanisms to make price protection available for Market Maker quotes as well. The Exchange believes that this proposed enhancement would assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by averting the risk of Market Maker quotes sweeping through multiple price points resulting in executions at prices that are through the last sale price or National Best Bid or Best Offer (“NBBO”) and potentially erroneous.
Rule 6.60, which applies solely to orders, affords price protection to orders priced a specified percentage through the prevailing contra-side market.
To further enhance the price protection functionality available on the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to adopt a new rule, Rule 6.61, which was previously Reserved, that would provide for a price protection mechanism for quotes entered by a Market Maker. To be clear that the proposed rule is for Market Maker quotes only, and consistent with the proposed change to the title for Rule 6.61, the Exchange proposes to title this new rule “Price Protection—Quotes.” In addition, Rule 6.61(a) would provide that the proposed price protection filters would be applicable only for quotes entered by a Market Maker pursuant to Rule 6.37B and would not be applicable to orders entered by a Market Maker.
To take into consideration the unique role of Market Makers to enter two-sided quotations in their appointments, the Exchange proposes to provide for two layers of price protection that would be applicable to all incoming Market Maker quotes. As discussed in detail below, the first layer of price protection would assess incoming sell quotes against the National Best Bid (“NBB”) and incoming buy quotes against the National Best Offer (“NBO”). The second layer of price protection would assess the price of call or put bids against a specified benchmark.
Proposed Rule 6.61(a)(1) would set forth the Exchange's proposed NBBO price reasonability check, which would compare Market Maker bids with the NBO and Market Maker offers with the NBB. This proposed price protection is [sic] mechanism is similar to the Limit Order Filter. Specifically, provided that an NBBO is available, a Market Maker quote would be rejected if it is priced a specified dollar amount or percentage through the contra-side NBBO as follows:
(A) $1.00 for Market Maker bids when the contra-side NBO is priced at or below $1.00; or
(B) 50% for Market Maker bids (offers) when the contra-side NBO (NBB) is priced above $1.00.
The Exchange would reject inbound Market Maker quotes that exceed the parameters set forth in proposed Rule 6.61(a)(1)(A)-(B) as presumptively erroneous. The Exchange believes that the proposed percentages are appropriate because they are based on the percentages already approved for the Limit Order Filter and are thus calibrated to enable the Exchange to reject quotes that otherwise may cause price dislocation before the erroneous quotes could cause harm to the market. The Exchange is also proposing a specific dollar threshold for when the NBO is priced at or below $1.00 because the Exchange believes that the specified dollar amount provides more granular price protection than a percentage-based protection. For example, if the NBO were $0.06, when using a 100% filter, the Exchange would be required to reject any bids priced $0.12 or more. For such low-priced NBOs, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to provide Market Makers with the ability to enter quotes at least $1.00 higher than the prevailing NBO.
In addition, pursuant to proposed Rule 6.61(a)(1)(A), Market Maker offers that arrive when the NBB is priced at or below $1.00 would not be subject to this filter. The Exchange believes that when the NBB is priced at or below $1.00, the price of an offer would be bound by $0.00, and therefore an offer would always be less than $1.00 away from the NBB. Such offer prices would likely not be erroneous and therefore the Exchange does not believe it necessary to reject such Market Maker offers.
Because there may be market scenarios that require the proposed parameters to be adjusted, for example, during periods of extreme price volatility, the Exchange further proposes to specify that the Exchange may revise these parameters, provided such revised parameters are announced to OTP Holders or OTP Firms via a Trader Update.
As an additional safeguard and risk-control feature, if a Market Maker quote is rejected pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this proposed Rule, the Exchange would also cancel any resting same-side quote in the affected series from that Market Maker.
The following examples, which are based on the below market scenario,
Proposed Rule 6.61(a)(2) and (3) would set forth the Exchange's proposed second layer of price protection filters for Market Maker quotes. These price protection mechanisms would be applicable when either there is no NBBO available, for example, during pre-opening or prior to conducting a re-opening after a trading halt, or if the NBBO is so wide as to not to reflect an appropriate price for the respective options series.
Proposed Rule 6.61(a)(2) would provide price protection for Market Maker bids in call options. As proposed, if such bids equal or exceed the price of the underlying security, the Market Maker bid would be rejected.
As proposed in new Rule 6.61(a)(2)(A), before the underlying security is open, the Exchange would use the previous day's closing price to determine the price of the underlying security. The Exchange proposes to use the prior day's closing price because, although the underlying securities may trade in the equities markets outside of 9:30 a.m. ET to 4:00 p.m. ET, the equities market is generally not as liquid during this time and equity market makers generally do not have quoting obligations in after-hours trading. Therefore, the Exchange believes that using the previous day's closing price—based on trading during Core Trading Hours, when the market is most liquid—provides a more accurate benchmark and thus a more precise price protection filter for underlying securities that have not yet opened. Per proposed Rule 6.61(a)(2)(B), once the underlying security has opened, the Exchange would use the consolidated last sale price to determine the price of the underlying security. Per proposed Rule 6.61(a)(2)(C), during a trading halt of the underlying security, the Exchange would use the consolidated last sale reported immediately prior to the trading halt to determine the price of the underlying security. The Exchange believes that the consolidated last sale price for an underlying security that has already opened would provide the most accurate benchmark because the market is most liquid during Core Trading Hours.
Proposed Rule 6.61(a)(3) would provide for price protection for Market Maker bids in put options. The value of a put can never exceed the strike price of the option, even if the stock goes to zero. For example, a put with a strike price of $50 gives the holder the right to sell the underlying security for $50 (no more, or no less), therefore it would be illogical to pay more than $50 for the right to sell that underlying security, no matter what the price of the underlying security. As proposed, the Exchange would deem any put bid that equals or exceeds the strike price of the option series to be erroneous and the Exchange believes it would be appropriate to reject such bids.
As an additional safeguard and risk control feature, when a Market Maker quote is rejected pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this Rule, the Exchange would also cancel all resting quote(s) in the affected class(es) from that Market Maker and shall not accept new quote(s) in the affected class(es) until the Market Maker submits a message (which may be automated) to the Exchange to enable the entry of new quotes.
The Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the Exchange's price protection functionality to Market Maker quotes would assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by averting the risk of Market Maker quotes sweeping through multiple price points resulting in executions at prices that are through the last sale price or NBBO and potentially erroneous. The Exchange notes that it retains the ability to disable these price protection features in response to market events.
The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change via Trader Update. The Trader Update will be issued at least 30 days prior to implementation to help ensure participants, in particular Market Makers, have sufficient notice prior to introducing the new functionality.
The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that this proposal meets these requirements because it would assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market by introducing new price protections that would help to mitigate the risks associated with the entry of quotes that are priced a specified dollar amount or percentage through the last sale or prevailing contra-side market, which the Exchange believes is evidence of error. By rejecting such quotes, the Exchange believes it is promoting just and equitable principles of trade by preventing potential price dislocation that could result from erroneous Market Maker quotes sweeping through multiple price points resulting in executions at prices that are through the last sale price or NBBO. Specifically, when an NBBO is available, the Exchange believes rejecting Market Maker quotes priced a specified dollar amount or percentage through the contra-side NBBO would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and protect investors and the public interest because it would enable the Exchange to avoid the submission of erroneous quotes that otherwise may cause price dislocation before such quotes could cause harm to the market.
The Exchange believes that proposed percentages are reasonable as they are based on the percentages already approved for the Limit Order Filter. In addition, the Exchange believes that the addition of specified dollar thresholds when the NBO is equal to or below $1.00 is consistent with the Act because it would assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market by offering Market Maker quotes more precise price protection. Moreover, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to place no limit on Market Maker offers that arrive when the NBB is priced at or below $1.00 because when the NBB is priced at or below $1.00, the price of an offer would be bound by $0.00, and therefore an offer would always be less than $1.00 away from the NBB—and therefore, not likely to be erroneous and not requiring price protection.
Similarly, the Exchange also believes that when no NBBO is available, the Exchange's proposed use of benchmarks to check the reasonability of Market Maker bids for call and put options would assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market by affording a second layer of price protection to Market Maker quotes. The Exchange believes these additional price reasonability checks on Market Maker bids would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and protect investors and the public interest because the proposed check would reject Market Maker bids that are priced higher than the corresponding benchmark, which would be the price of the underlying security for call options and the strike price for put options.
The Exchange also believes the additional risk controls that result in the cancellation of a Market Maker's resting quote and/or the temporary suspension a Market Maker's quoting activity in the affected option class(es) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and protect investors and the public interest because it provides the Market Maker with an opportunity to re-evaluate their positions before requesting to re-enter the market. The Exchange believes that this additional safeguard would benefit investors and the public because it would provide market participants with additional protection from anomalous executions.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposal would not unduly burden any particular group of market participants trading on the Exchange vis-à-vis another group (
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, 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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of California dated 01/07/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14208 B and for economic injury is 14209 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is California.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of California dated 01/02/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14204 B and for economic injury is 14205 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is California.
The Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law, Department of State, hereby gives notice that the ACPIL ODR Study Group will hold a public meeting. The ACPIL ODR Study Group will meet to discuss the next session of the UNCITRAL ODR Working Group, scheduled for February 9-13, in New York. This is not a meeting of the full Advisory Committee.
The UNCITRAL ODR Working Group is charged with the development of legal instruments for resolving both business to business and business to consumer cross-border electronic commerce disputes. The Working Group is in the process of developing generic ODR procedural rules for resolution of cross-border electronic commerce disputes, along with separate legal instruments that may take the form of annexes such as guidelines for online dispute resolution providers and arbitrators. For the reports of the first nine sessions of the UNCITRAL ODR Working Group—December 13-17, 2010, in Vienna (A/CN.9/716); May 23-27, 2011, in New York (A/CN.9/721); Nov. 14-18, 2011, in Vienna (A/CN.9/739); May 21-25, 2012, in New York (A/CN.9/744); November 5-9, 2012, in Vienna (A/CN.9/762): May 20-24, 2013, in New York (A/CN.9/769); November 18-22, 2013, in Vienna (A/CN.9/795); March 24-28, 2014, in New York (A/CN.9/801); and October 20-24, 2014, in Vienna (A/CN.9/827)—please follow the following link:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 217—Aeronautical Databases Joint with EUROCAE WG-44—Aeronautical Databases.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 217—Aeronautical Databases being held jointly with EUROCAE WG-44—Aeronautical Databases.
The meeting will be held March 2-6 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be hosted by Honeywell, V parku 16 148 00 Prague 4 Czech Republic.
Sophie Bousquet,
Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 217—Aeronautical Databases held jointly with EUROCAE WG-44—
• Opening Plenary Session
• Co-Chairmen's remarks, introductions and Housekeeping
• Approve minutes from 22nd meeting
• Review and approve meeting agenda for 23rd meeting
• Review of joint WG-1/WG-2 Action Items
• Working Group One (WG1)—Rev DO-200A—Stephane Dubet
○ DO-200B (ED-76A) Open Consultation/FRAC resolution
○ Overview of comments received (by FRAC Preparation Team)
• Working Group Two (WG2)—DO-272/DO-276/DO-291—John Kasten
○ Final work on Documents and review before FRAC
○ Schedule for FRAC release and associated actions
• Approval of Rev DO-200A (ED-76) for the PMC/TAC-Council
• Approval of Rev DO-272/DO-276/DO-291 for FRAC—Open Consultation
• Working arrangements for the remaining work and Review of action items
• Next meetings, dates and locations
• Any other business and Adjourn
Pre-registration for the meeting itself is required, if you have not already done so, please provide your information to Sophie Bousquet,
The Surface Transportation Board has received a request Neville Peterson LLP on behalf of Trinity Industries, Inc. (WB605-11—1/7/14) for permission to use certain data from the Board's 2013 Carload Waybill Sample. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Office of Economics.
The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
Department of the Treasury.
Notice of proposed Privacy Act of 1974 system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) proposes to establish a new Privacy Act system of records titled “Treasury .015—General Information Technology Access Account Records.” This system will allow Treasury to collect a discrete set of personally identifiable information in order to allow authorized individuals access to, or interaction with, Treasury information technology resources and allow Treasury to track use of its information technology resources.
Submit comments on or before February 13, 2015. This new system will be effective February 23, 2015 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by one of the following methods:
•
•
For general questions and for privacy issues please contact: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Privacy, Transparency, and Records, Office of Privacy, Transparency, and Records (202-622-0790), Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20220.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of the Treasury proposes to establish a new system of records titled, “Treasury .015—General Information Technology Access Account Records.” The proposed system of records is published in its entirety below.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), Treasury provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and Congress.
Treasury .015—General Information Technology Access Account Records System of Records.
The records are located at Main Treasury and in other Treasury bureaus and offices, both in Washington, DC and at field locations as follows:
(1) Departmental Offices: 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20220;
(2) Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau: 1310 G St. NW., Washington, DC 20220.
(3) Office of the Comptroller of the Currency: Constitution Center, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC 20024;
(4) Fiscal Service: Liberty Center Building, 401 14th St. SW., Washington, DC 20227;
(5) Internal Revenue Service: 1111 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20224;
(6) United States Mint: 801 Ninth St. NW., Washington, DC 20220;
(7) Bureau of Engraving and Printing: Eastern Currency Facility, 14th and C Streets SW., Washington, DC 20228 and Western Currency Facility, 9000 Blue Mound Rd., Fort Worth, TX 76131;
(8) Financial Crimes Enforcement Network: Vienna, VA 22183;
(9) Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program: 1801 L St. NW., Washington, DC 20220;
(10) Office of Inspector General: 740 15th St. NW., Washington, DC 20220; and
(11) Office of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration: 1125 15th St. NW., Suite 700A, Washington, DC 20005.
• All persons who are authorized to access Treasury information technology resources, including employees, contractors, grantees, fiscal agents, financial agents, interns, detailees, and any lawfully designated representative of the above as well as representatives of federal, state, territorial, tribal, local, international, or foreign government agencies or entities, in furtherance of the Treasury mission.
• Individuals who serve on Treasury boards and committees;
• Individuals who provide personal information in order to facilitate access to Treasury information technology resources;
• Industry points-of-contact providing business contact information for conducting business with government agencies;
• Industry points-of-contact emergency contact information in case of an injury or medical notification;
• Individuals who voluntarily join a Treasury-owned and operated web portal for collaboration purposes; and
• Individuals who request access but are denied, or who have had their access to Treasury information systems revoked.
• Social Security number;
• Business name;
• Job title;
• Business contact information;
• Personal contact information;
• Pager numbers;
• Others phone numbers or contact information provided by individuals while on travel or otherwise away from the office or home;
• Citizenship;
• Level of access;
• Home addresses;
• Business addresses;
• Personal and business electronic mail addresses of senders and recipients;
• Justification for access to Treasury computers, networks, or systems;
• Verification of training requirements or other prerequisite requirements for access to Treasury computers, networks, or systems;
• Records on the authentication of a request for access to a Treasury IT resource, including names, phone numbers of other contacts, and positions or business/organizational affiliations and titles of individuals who can verify that the individual seeking access has a need for access to a Treasury IT resource.
• Records on access to Treasury computers and networks including user IDs and passwords;
• Registration numbers or IDs associated with Treasury information technology resources;
• Date and time of access to Treasury IT resources;
• Tax returns and tax return information;
• Logs of activity when accessing and using Treasury information technology resources;
• Internet Protocol address of visitors to Treasury Web sites (a unique number identifying the computer from which a member of the public or others access Treasury IT resources); and
• Logs of individuals' internet activity while using Treasury IT resources.
44 U.S.C. 3101; EO 9397, as amended by EO 13487; and 44 U.S.C. 3534.
This system will allow Treasury to collect a discrete set of personally identifiable information in order to allow authorized individuals access to, or interactions with, Treasury information technology resources, and allow Treasury to track use of its information technology resources. The system enables Treasury to maintain: account information required for approved access to information technology; lists of individuals who are appropriate organizational points of contact; and lists of individuals who are emergency points of contact. The system will also enable Treasury to provide individuals access to certain meetings and programs where additional information is required and, where appropriate, facilitate collaboration by allowing individuals in the same operational program to share information.
Disclosure of tax returns and tax return information may be made only as allowed by 26 U.S.C. 6103. In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a (b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside Treasury as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (b) (3), as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (including United States Attorneys' Offices) or other federal agencies conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court or adjudicative or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. Treasury or any component thereof;
2. Any employee of Treasury in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee of Treasury in his/her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or Treasury has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. Treasury suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;
2. The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons as is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with Treasury's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, fiscal agent, financial agents, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for Treasury, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to Treasury officers and employees.
G. To an appropriate federal, state, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, where a record, either on its face
H. To sponsors, employers, contractors, facility operators, grantees, experts, fiscal agents, financial agents, and consultants in connection with establishing an access account for an individual or maintaining appropriate points of contact and when necessary to accomplish a Treasury mission function or objective related to this system of records.
I. To other individuals in the same operational program supported by an information technology resource, where appropriate notice to the individual has been made that his or her contact information will be shared with other members of the same operational program in order to facilitate collaboration.
J. To federal agencies such as the Office of Personnel Management, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Office of Management and Budget, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the Government Accountability Office, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the fulfillment of these agencies' official duties.
K. To international, federal, state, local, tribal, or private entities for the purpose of the regular exchange of business contact information in order to facilitate collaboration for official business.
L. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Senior Agency Official for Privacy, or her designee, in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information or when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of Treasury or is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of Treasury's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Records in this system are on paper and/or in digital or other electronic form. Digital and other electronic images are stored on a storage area network in a secured environment. Records, whether paper or electronic, may be stored at the Treasury Headquarters or at the bureau or office level.
Information may be retrieved, sorted, and/or searched by an identification number assigned by computer, by facility, by business affiliation, email address, or by the name of the individual, or other employee data fields previously identified in this System of Records Notice.
Information in this system is safeguarded in accordance with applicable laws, rules and policies, including Treasury Directive 85-01, Department of the Treasury Information Technology (IT) Security Program. Further, Treasury .015—General Information Technology Access Account Records system of records security protocols will meet multiple National Institute of Standards and Technology security standards from authentication to certification and authorization. Records in the Treasury .015—General Information Technology Access Account Records system of records will be maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that will utilize security hardware and software to include: multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. Additional safeguards will vary by component and program. All records are protected from unauthorized access through appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards. These safeguards include restricting access to authorized personnel who have a “need to know,” using locks, and password protection identification features. Treasury file areas are locked after normal duty hours and the facilities are protected by security personnel who monitor access to and egress from Treasury facilities.
Records are securely retained and disposed of in accordance with the National Archives and Records Administration's General Records Schedule 24, section 6, “User Identification, Profiles, Authorizations, and Password Files.” Inactive records will be destroyed or deleted 6 years after the user account is terminated or password is altered, or when no longer needed for investigative or security purposes, whichever is later.
DASIT/CIO, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing, in accordance with Treasury's Privacy Act regulations (located at 31 CFR 1.26), to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Transparency Liaison, whose contact information can be found at
No specific form is required, but a request must be written and:
• Be signed and either notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization
• State that the request is made pursuant to the FOIA and/or Privacy Act disclosure regulations;
• Include information that will enable the processing office to determine the fee category of the user;
• Addressed to the bureau that maintains the record (in order for a request to be properly received by the Department, the request must be received in the appropriate bureau's disclosure office);
• Reasonably describe the records;
• Give the address where the determination letter is to be sent;
• State whether or not the requester wishes to inspect the records or have a copy made without first inspecting them; and
• Include a firm agreement from the requester to pay fees for search, duplication, or review, as appropriate. In the absence of a firm agreement to pay, the requester may submit a request for a waiver or reduction of fees, along with justification of how such a waiver request meets the criteria for a waiver or reduction of fees found in the FOIA statute at 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(iii).
You may also submit your request online at
See “Notification procedure” above.
See “Notification procedure” above.
Information contained in this system is obtained from affected individuals, organizations, and facilities; public source data; other government agencies; and information already in other Treasury records systems.
None.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before February 13, 2015.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Office of National Veterans Sports Programs and Special Events, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Office of National Veterans Sports Programs and Special Events, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 13, 2015.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Under OMB Review.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before February 13, 2015.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 13, 2015.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
a. Application for Work-Study Allowance, VA Form 22-8691.
b. Student Work-Study Agreement (Advance Payment), VA Form 22-8692.
c. Extended Student Work-Study Agreement, VA Form 22-8692a.
d. Work-Study Agreement, VA Form 22-8692b.
a. VA Form 22-8691 is used by claimants to apply for work-study benefits.
b. VA Form 22-8692 is used to request an advance payment of work-study allowance.
c. VA Form 22-8692a is used by a claimant to extend his or her work-study contract.
d. VA Form 22-8692b is used by claimants who do not want a work-study advanced allowance payment.
The data collected is used to determine an applicant's eligibility for work-study allowance and the amount payable.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
a. VA Form 22-8691—5,008 hours.
b. VA Form 22-8692 & VA Form 22-8692b—1,296 hours.
c. VA Form 22-8692a—153 hours.
a. VA Form 22-8691—15 minutes.
b. VA Form 22-8692—5 minutes.
c. VA Form 22-8692a—3 minutes.
d. VA Form 22-8692b—5 minutes.
a. VA Form 22-8691—20,032.
b. VA Form 22-8692 & VA Form 22-8692a—15,549.
c. VA Form 22-8692b—3,054.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, VA.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 13, 2015.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, VA.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 13, 2015.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Under OMB Review.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before February 13, 2015.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 13, 2015.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.