Agricultural Marketing Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Engineers Corps
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Engineers Corps
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
Science and Technology Policy Office
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Transportation Security Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
(e) * * * If only three food items are offered at breakfast, school food authorities or schools may not exercise the offer versus serve option.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the Class E airspace at Roberts Field, Redmond, OR. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft arriving and departing under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) at Roberts Field. This action, initiated by the biennial review of the Redmond, OR airspace area, enhances the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport. This action makes a minor correction to the geographic coordinates of the airport and also corrects the lateral dimensions of the southeast segment of Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D and E surface area.
Effective date, 0901 UTC, September 18, 2014. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4517.
On February 11, 2014, the FAA published in the
Subsequent to publication, the FAA found an error in the lateral dimensions of the southeast segment of Class E surface area airspace and is corrected from 3.5-miles to 13.5-miles. The geographic coordinates also are adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E surface area airspace at Roberts Field, Redmond, OR, to remove the segment extending from the 5.1-mile radius of the airport to .9 miles west of the Deschutes VORTAC, and by modifying Class E airspace designated as an extension to the Class D and Class E surface area by adding a segment extending from the 5.1-mile radius of Roberts Field, Redmond, OR, to 13.5 miles southeast of the airport, and removing the segment from the 5.1-mile radius of the airport to .9 miles west of the Deschutes VORTAC. After a biennial review of the airspace, the FAA found the segment is no longer needed for aircraft arriving and departing under IFR operations. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is modified with segments extending from the 7.6-mile radius of Roberts Field to 11.5 miles northeast and 15 miles southeast of the airport. The lateral dimensions of the southeast segment of Class E airspace designated as an extension, extending from the 5.1-mile radius of the airport is corrected from 3.5 miles to 13.5 miles. This rule is necessary to accommodate RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures and for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport are updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Except for administrative changes and the changes listed above, this rule is the same as published in the NPRM.
The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E,
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace within a 5.1 mile radius of Roberts Field. This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile each side of the 122° bearing of Roberts Field extending from the 5.1-mile radius to 13.5 miles southeast of the airport. This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.6-mile radius of Roberts Field, and within 3 miles either side of the 87° degree bearing of Roberts Field extending from the 7.6-mile radius to 11.5 miles northeast of the airport, and within 3.5 miles either side of the 122° bearing of the airport extending from the 7.6-mile radius to 15 miles southeast of the airport.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) is adopting revisions to the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval System (EDGAR) Filer Manual and related rules to reflect updates to the EDGAR system. The revisions are being made primarily to support the US GAAP 2014 Taxonomy, validate the filings containing EX-101 XBRL documents, update the Public Validation Criteria validation in EX-101.INS documents, change the ABS Asset Class value “Corporate Debt” for ABS-15G and ABS-15G/A to “Debt Securities,” disseminate unofficial PDF copies of COVER and CORRESP attachments to EDGARLink Online submissions at the discretion of the SEC, update the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) screens, and revise the N-SAR system requirements. The EDGAR system is scheduled to be upgraded to support this functionality on June 16, 2014.
In the Division of Corporation Finance, for questions concerning dissemination of unofficial PDF copies of COVER and CORRESP attachments to EDGARLink Online submissions contact Heather Mackintosh at (202) 551-3600; in the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, for questions concerning taxonomies update and XBRL contact Walter Hamscher at (202) 551-5397; and in the Office of Information Technology, contact Vanessa Anderson at (202) 551-8800.
We are adopting an updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I, Volume II, and Volume III. The Filer Manual describes the technical formatting requirements for the preparation and submission of electronic filings through the EDGAR system.
The revisions to the Filer Manual reflect changes within Volume I entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: “General Information,” Version 17 (June 2014), Volume II entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 27 (June 2014), and Volume III entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume III: “N-SAR Supplement,” Version 3 (June 2014). The updated manual will be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations.
The Filer Manual contains all the technical specifications for filers to submit filings using the EDGAR system. Filers must comply with the applicable provisions of the Filer Manual in order to assure the timely acceptance and processing of filings made in electronic format.
The EDGAR system will be upgraded to Release 14.1 on June 16, 2014 and will introduce the following changes: EDGAR will be updated to support the US GAAP 2014 Taxonomy. In addition, EDGAR will no longer provide support for the US GAAP 2012 Taxonomy and the US 2011 DEI Taxonomy. Please see
Filings containing the EX-101 XBRL documents will be validated to ensure that:
• EX-101 exhibits do not contain custom elements with a fractionItemType declaration.
• EX-101 exhibits with numerical elements do not have a value and decimal attribute combination that would cause non-zero digits to be truncated to zero.
• EX-101 exhibits with non-numeric elements do not have label roles, such as “negated,” “zero,” and “positive” that imply they are numeric.
• EX-101 exhibits do not contain an element declaration for which xbrli:periodType is instant and its base type is non-numeric.
• EX-101.INS XBRL documents do not contain contexts that include the xbrli:forever context element.
The Public Validation Criteria validation [fs-0509-Start-And-End-Dates-Not-Distinct-Inconsistent-With-Document-Type] has been updated to allow individual context durations in EX-101.INS documents that are equal to or greater than 24 hours.
The ABS Asset Class value “Corporate Debt” for ABS-15G and ABS-15G/A submission form types will be changed to “Debt Securities.” This change will not impact previous ABS-15G and ABS-15G/A submissions where filers selected “Corporate Debt” as the ABS Asset Class value.
Unofficial PDF copies of COVER and CORRESP attachments to EDGARLink Online submissions will now be disseminated at the discretion of the SEC.
The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) screens of the EDGAR Filing Web site and the EDGAR Filer Management Web site have been updated to include a new “EDGAR Quick Reference Guides” hyperlink. On clicking this hyperlink, filers are presented with a list of hyperlinks to the Quick Reference Guides in the lower pane of the window.
Section 2.1 of the “EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume III: N-SAR Supplement” has been revised to update the following N-SAR system requirements. (Note: The procedure for filing Form N-SAR, the Semi-Annual Report for Registered Investment Companies has not changed.)
• The N-SAR PC application (Version 6.1.a) is supported by 16-bit and 32-bit Windows-based Operating Systems.
• The references to modem and the Netscape browser have been deleted. The Internet browsers recommended for transmitting N-SAR submissions include Internet Explorer 7.0 through 8.0, and Firefox 17.0 or later.
Along with the adoption of the Filer Manual, we are amending Rule 301 of Regulation S-T to provide for the incorporation by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations of today's revisions. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
You may obtain paper copies of the updated Filer Manual at the following address: Public Reference Room, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Room 1543, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. We will post electronic format copies on the Commission's Web site; the address for the Filer Manual is
Since the Filer Manual and the corresponding rule changes relate solely to agency procedures or practice, publication for notice and comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The effective date for the updated Filer Manual and the rule amendments is June 20, 2014. In accordance with the APA,
We are adopting the amendments to Regulation S-T under Sections 6, 7, 8, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
In accordance with the foregoing, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3, 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78
Filers must prepare electronic filings in the manner prescribed by the EDGAR Filer Manual, promulgated by the Commission, which sets out the technical formatting requirements for electronic submissions. The requirements for becoming an EDGAR Filer and updating company data are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: “General Information,” Version 17 (June 2014). The requirements for filing on EDGAR are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 27 (June 2014). Additional provisions applicable to Form N-SAR filers are set forth in the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume III: “N-SAR Supplement,” Version 3 (June 2014). All of these provisions have been incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations, which action was approved by the Director of the
By the Commission.
Department of State.
Final rule.
The Department of State (hereinafter, “State” or “the Department”) is amending its debt collection regulations to permit debt notices to be sent by electronic mail to certain debtors and to reflect a change in federal law, which authorizes the offset of Federal non-tax payments to collect delinquent federal debt without regard to the amount of time the debt has been delinquent.
This rule will become effective on June 20, 2014.
Elizabeth Amory, Office of the Legal Adviser, United States Department of State (843)746-0558,
This rule amends State's debt collection regulations found at 22 CFR part 34 to permit debt notices to be sent by electronic mail and to reflect the 2008 amendment to 31 U.S.C. 3716(e), which authorizes the offset of Federal non-tax payments to collect delinquent federal debt without regard to the amount of time the debt has been delinquent.
State's regulations at 22 CFR 34.8(a) and 34.13 currently require that debt collection notices be hand-delivered or sent by first class mail. In some situations, sending debt notices by email is a more effective and efficient means of ensuring actual receipt of the notice by the debtor in a timely manner. For example, for a debtor who is a current State employee and, therefore, has been assigned a State email account, the delivery of a notification via that email account will allow the debtor to receive the notice more quickly, reliably, and conveniently than if it were sent by first class mail. This is especially true for employees serving overseas for whom it takes longer to receive first class mail.
With modernization of State's information systems, State is able to verify the delivery of notices sent to its own email addresses, rather than first class mail. Notice by email may also be a more effective and efficient means of notifying a debtor who is a State contractor or a vendor who uses email regularly to communicate with State (e.g., when submitting invoices). In these situations, it is in the interest of both parties for State to have the ability to utilize email for purposes of debt collection notification.
22 CFR 34.10(7) currently refers to the ten-year limitation on the offset of Federal nontax debts in order to collect delinquent Federal debts, which was eliminated by Section 14219 of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 110-234. This statute amended 31 U.S.C. 3716(e) to provide that no limitation on the period within which an offset may be initiated or taken, pursuant to that section, shall be effective. This proscription is mandatory; therefore, State must amend its regulations to remove the 10-year cutoff.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Debts, Garnishment of wages, Government employee, Hearing and appeal procedures, Pay administration, Salaries, Wages.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, 22 CFR part 34 is amended as follows:
31 U.S.C. 3701-3719; 5 U.S.C. 5514; 31 CFR part 285; 31 CFR parts 900-904; 5 CFR part 550, subpart K.
(a) STATE shall promptly hand deliver, send by first class mail to the debtor's most current address in the records of STATE, or, in appropriate circumstances, send by electronic mail to the debtor's most current address in the records of STATE, at least one written notice. Written demand under this subpart may be preceded by other appropriate actions under this part and or the FCCS, including but not limited to actions taken under the procedures applicable to administrative offset, including salary offset.
Except as provided in § 34.16, salary offset deductions will not be made unless STATE first provides the employee with a written notice that he/she owes a debt to the Federal Government at least 30 calendar days before salary offset is to be initiated. When STATE is the creditor agency, this notice of intent to offset an employee's salary shall be hand-delivered or sent by electronic mail to the employee's STATE issued electronic mail address and will state:
Agency for International Development (USAID).
Final rule.
This regulation prescribes the procedures and standard terms and conditions applicable to loan guarantees to be issued for the benefit of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan pursuant Section 7041(g)(1)(A) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2014.
Effective June 19, 2014.
D. Bruce McPherson, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC 20523-6601; tel. 202-712-1611, fax 202-216-3055.
Pursuant to the Section 7041(g)(1)(A) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2014 (Div. K, Pub. L. 113-76), the United States of America, acting through the U.S. Agency for International Development, may issue certain loan guarantees applicable to sums borrowed by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (the “Borrower”), not exceeding an aggregate total of U.S. $1.25 billion in principal amount. Upon issuance, the loan guarantees shall ensure the Borrower's repayment of 100% of principal and interest due under such loans and the full faith and credit of the United States of America shall be pledged for the full payment and performance of such guarantee obligations.
This rulemaking document is not subject to rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553 or to regulatory review under Executive Order 12866 because it involves a foreign affairs function of the United States. The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Foreign aid, Foreign relations, Guaranteed loans, Loan programs-foreign relations.
Accordingly, a new Part 235 is added to Title 22, Chapter II, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
Sec. 7041(g)(1)(A), Div. K, Pub. L. 113-76, 128 Stat. 5.
The purpose of the regulations in this part is to prescribe the procedures and standard terms and conditions applicable to loan guarantees issued for the benefit of the Borrower, pursuant to Section 7041(g)(1)(A) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2014 (Div. K, Pub. L. 113-76). The loan guarantees will be issued as provided herein pursuant to the Loan Guarantee Agreement, dated May 5, 2014, between the United States of America and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (the “Loan Guarantee Agreement”). The loan guarantee will apply to sums borrowed during a period beginning on the date that the Loan Guarantee Agreement enters into force and ending thirty days after such date, not exceeding an aggregate total of one billion United States Dollars ($1,000,000,000) in principal amount. The loan guarantees shall ensure the Borrower's repayment of 100% of principal and interest due under such loans. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is pledged for the full payment and performance of such guarantee obligations.
Wherever used in the standard terms and conditions set out in this part:
(1) Defaulted Payment unpaid as of the Date of Application,
(2) Further Guaranteed Payments unpaid as of the Date of Application, and
(3) Interest accrued and unpaid at the Interest Rate(s) specified in the Eligible Note(s) on the Defaulted Payment and Further Guaranteed Payments, in each case from the date of default with respect to such payment to and including the date on which full payment thereof is made to the Noteholder.
Subject to the terms and conditions set out in this part, the United States of America, acting through USAID, guarantees to Noteholders the Borrower's repayment of 100 percent of principal and interest due on Eligible Notes. Under the Guarantee, USAID agrees to pay to any Noteholder compensation in Dollars equal to such Noteholder's Loss of Investment under its Eligible Note; provided, however, that no such payment shall be made to any Noteholder for any such loss arising out of fraud or misrepresentation for which such Noteholder is responsible or of which it had knowledge at the time it became such Noteholder. The Guarantee shall apply to each Eligible Note registered on the Note Register required to be maintained by the Fiscal Agent.
(a) Eligible Notes only are guaranteed hereunder. Notes in order to achieve Eligible Note status:
(1) Must be signed on behalf of the Borrower, manually or in facsimile, by a duly authorized representative of the Borrower;
(2) Must contain a certificate of authentication manually executed by a
(3) Shall be approved and authenticated by USAID by either:
(i) The affixing by USAID on the Notes of a guarantee legend incorporating these Standard Terms and Conditions signed on behalf of USAID by either a manual signature or a facsimile signature of an authorized representative of USAID or
(ii) The delivery by USAID to the Fiscal Agent of a guarantee certificate incorporating these Standard Terms and Conditions signed on behalf of USAID by either a manual signature or a facsimile signature of an authorized representative of USAID.
(b) The authorized USAID representatives for purposes of the regulations in this part whose signature(s) shall be binding on USAID shall include the USAID Chief and Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Assistant Administrator and Deputy, Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment, Director and Deputy Director, Office of Development Credit, and such other individual(s) designated in a certificate executed by an authorized USAID Representative and delivered to the Fiscal Agent. The certificate of authentication of the Fiscal Agent issued pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement shall, when manually executed by the Fiscal Agent, be conclusive evidence binding on USAID that an Eligible Note has been duly executed on behalf of the Borrower and delivered.
After issuance of the Guarantee, the Guarantee will be an unconditional, full faith and credit obligation of the United States of America and will not be affected or impaired by any subsequent condition or event. This non-impairment of the guarantee provision shall not, however, be operative with respect to any loss arising out of fraud or misrepresentation for which the claiming Noteholder is responsible or of which it had knowledge at the time it became a Noteholder. In particular and without limitation, the Guarantee shall not be affected or impaired by:
(a) Any defect in the authorization, execution, delivery or enforceability of any agreement or other document executed by a Noteholder, USAID, the Fiscal Agent or the Borrower in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Guarantee or
(b) The suspension or termination of the program pursuant to which USAID is authorized to guarantee the Eligible Notes.
A Noteholder may assign, transfer or pledge an Eligible Note to any Person. Any such assignment, transfer or pledge shall be effective on the date that the name of the new Noteholder is entered on the Note Register required to be maintained by the Fiscal Agent pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement. USAID shall be entitled to treat the Persons in whose names the Eligible Notes are registered as the owners thereof for all purposes of the Guarantee and USAID shall not be affected by notice to the contrary.
Failure of the Fiscal Agent to perform any of its obligations pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement shall not impair any Noteholder's rights under the Guarantee, but may be the subject of action for damages against the Fiscal Agent by USAID as a result of such failure or neglect. A Noteholder may appoint the Fiscal Agent to make demand for payment on its behalf under the Guarantee.
At any time after an Event of Default, as this term is defined in an Eligible Note, any Noteholder hereunder, or the Fiscal Agent on behalf of a Noteholder hereunder, may file with USAID an Application for Compensation in the form provided in Appendix A to this part. USAID shall pay or cause to be paid to any such Applicant any compensation specified in such Application for Compensation that is due to the Applicant pursuant to the Guarantee as a Loss of Investment not later than the Guarantee Payment Date. In the event that USAID receives any other notice of an Event of Default, USAID may pay any compensation that is due to any Noteholder pursuant to the Guarantee, whether or not such Noteholder has filed with USAID an Application for Compensation in respect of such amount.
Eligible Notes shall not be subject to acceleration, in whole or in part, by USAID, the Noteholder or any other party. USAID shall not have the right to pay any amounts in respect of the Eligible Notes other than in accordance with the original payment terms of such Eligible Notes.
If a Noteholder shall, as a result of USAID paying compensation under the Guarantee, receive an excess payment, it shall refund the excess to USAID.
In the event of payment by USAID to a Noteholder under the Guarantee, USAID shall be subrogated to the extent of such payment to all of the rights of such Noteholder against the Borrower under the related Note.
After payment by USAID to an Applicant hereunder, USAID shall have exclusive power to prosecute all claims related to rights to receive payments under the Eligible Notes to which it is thereby subrogated. If a Noteholder continues to have an interest in the outstanding Eligible Notes, such a Noteholder and USAID shall consult with each other with respect to their respective interests in such Eligible Notes and the manner of and responsibility for prosecuting claims.
No Noteholder will consent to any change or waiver of any provision of any document contemplated by the Guarantee without the prior written consent of USAID.
Any controversy or claim between USAID and any Noteholder arising out of the Guarantee shall be settled by arbitration to be held in Washington, DC in accordance with the then prevailing rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Any communication to USAID pursuant to the Guarantee shall be in writing in the English language, shall refer to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Loan Guarantee Number inscribed on the Eligible Note and shall be complete on the day it shall be actually received by USAID at the Office of Development Credit, Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and Environment, United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC 20523-0030. Other addresses may be substituted for the above upon the giving of notice of such substitution to each Noteholder by first class mail at the address set forth in the Note Register.
The Guarantee shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the United States of America governing contracts and commercial transactions of the United States Government.
Ref: Guarantee dated as of __, 20_:
Gentlemen: You are hereby advised that payment of $__ (consisting of $__ of principal, $__ of interest and $____in Further Guaranteed Payments, as defined in § 235.2 of the Standard Terms and Conditions of the above-mentioned Guarantee) was due on ____, 20_, on $__ Principal Amount of Notes issued by Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (the “Borrower”) held by the undersigned. Of such amount $__ was not received on such date and has not been received by the undersigned at the date hereof. In accordance with the terms and provisions of the above-mentioned Guarantee, the undersigned hereby applies, under § 235.8 of said Guarantee, for payment of $__, representing $__, the Principal Amount of the presently outstanding Note(s) of the Borrower held by the undersigned that was due and payable on __ and that remains unpaid, and $__, the Interest Amount on such Note(s) that was due and payable by the Borrower on __ and that remains unpaid, and $__ in Further Guaranteed Payments,
All capitalized terms herein that are not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Standard Terms and Conditions of the above-mentioned Guarantee.
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Final rule; technical corrections.
This document contains technical correction amendments to the Air Force EIAP regulation codified at 32 CFR Part 989. The rule relates to the Air Force process for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Executive Order (E.O.) 12114,
Mr. Jack Bush (HQ USAF/A7CI), 1260 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1260, (703) 614-0237.
The final rule that is the subject of these corrections administratively changes responsibilities of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Environment, Safety and Occupational Health to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations. This document contains administrative documentation of internal realignment and redistribution of responsibilities within the organization of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations and Energy (SAF/IE) that pertain to official functions codified in this Part. The functions themselves remain unchanged and continue to be performed by principals within SAF/IE.
The Air Force has determined that the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, does not require notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation in connection with these corrections. In this regard, the Air Force notes that such notice and opportunity for comment is unnecessary because these corrections are related solely to agency organization, procedure and practice and make technical corrections. Accordingly, the Air Force finds good cause to make these corrections effective immediately upon publication in the
Environmental assessments, Environmental impact statements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 32 CFR Part 989 is corrected by making the following amendments:
10 U.S.C. 8013.
(a) * * *
(1) The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations (SAF/IEI).
(h) * * * Formal arrangements with foreign governments concerning environmental matters and communications with foreign governments concerning environmental agreements will be coordinated with the Department of State by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations (SAF/IEI) through the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment). * * *
(d) To ensure timely initiation of the EIAP, SAF/AQ forwards information copies of all Mission Need Statements and System Operational Requirements Documents to SAF/IEI, HQ USAF/A7CI (or NGB/A7CV), the Air Force Medical Operations Agency, Aerospace Medicine Office (AFMOA/SG), and the affected MAJCOM EPFs.
(h) EAs and accompanying FONSIs that require the Air Force to make Clean Air Act General Conformity Determinations shall be submitted (five hard copies and an electronic version) through the MAJCOM EPF to HQ USAF/A7CI for SAF/IEE coordination. SAF/IEE signs all General Conformity Determinations; SAF/IEI will sign the companion FONSIs after coordination with SAF/IEE, when requested by the MAJCOM (see § 989.30).
(c) * * *
(2) * * * Submit requests to deviate from procedures in appendix C to this part to HQ USAF/A7CI for SAF/IEI approval.
(a) If changes in the draft EIS are minor or limited to factual corrections and responses to comments, the proponent and EPF may, with the prior approval of HQ USAF/A7CI and SAF/IEI, prepare a document containing only comments on the Draft EIS, Air Force responses, and errata sheets of changes staffed to the HQ USAF ESOHC for coordination. * * *
(a) The proponent and the EPF prepare a draft ROD, formally staff it through the MAJCOM EPC, to HQ USAF/A7CI for verification of adequacy, and forwards it to either SAF/IEI or SAF/AQR, as the case may be, for approval and designation of the signator. * * *
(f) Whenever a proponent believes that EIAP documents should be kept classified, the EPF must make a report of the matter to SAF/IEI, including proposed modifications of the normal EIAP to protect classified information. The EPF may make such submissions at whatever level of security classification is needed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the issues. SAF/IEI, with support from SAF/GC and other staff elements as necessary, makes final decisions on EIAP procedures for classified actions.
(a) * * * EPFs must forward all requests for procedural deviations to HQ USAF/A7CI (or ANGRC/CEV) for review and approval by SAF/IEI.
(b) * * * If possible, promptly notify HQ USAF/A7CI, for SAF/IEI coordination and CEQ consultation. * * *
In order to deal with unusual circumstances and to allow growth in the EIAP process, SAF/IEI may grant waivers to those procedures contained in this part not required by NEPA or the CEQ Regulations. * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of Deviation from Drawbridge Regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the US 70/Alfred C. Cunningham Bridge across the Trent River, mile 0.0, at New Bern, NC. The deviation is necessary to ensure the safety of attendees to the Mumfest celebration. The deviation allows the bridge draw span to open every two hours, on the hour, during the deviation period to accommodate the free movement of pedestrians and vehicles during the annual Mumfest celebration.
This deviation is effective from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on October 11, 2014 and from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on October 12, 2014.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2014-0486 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or e-mail Mrs. Jessica Shea, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, telephone (757) 398-6422, email
The Event Director for the New Bern Mumfest, with approval from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, owner of the drawbridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.843(a) to accommodate safe passage for pedestrians and vehicles during Mumfest.
The US 70/Alfred C. Cunningham Bridge across the Trent River, mile 0.0, a double bascule lift Bridge, in New Bern, NC, has a vertical clearance in the
Vessels able to pass under the closed span may do so. Mariners are advised to proceed with caution. There are no alternate routes for vessels and the bridge will be able to open in the event of an emergency. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service
Douglas Germer, Revenue/Field Accounting,
On January 3, 2014, the Postal Service published a revised notice of proposed rulemaking (79 FR 375-6) to align with current costs the assessments for processing postage refunds that have been in effect since 2003. The Postal Service proposed to update the hourly factor used in refund assessments from $35.00 an hour to $50.00 an hour. Additionally, the threshold for assessing postage refunds at the hourly factor would be updated from postage amounts exceeding $350.00 to postage amounts exceeding $500.00. The current 10% assessment used below the threshold would remain unchanged.
The Postal Service also proposed to add language to the DMM to provide customers with information on refund time periods for extra service fees to align with the revised claims filing periods (made effective January 26, 2014) to promote timely adjudication. The Postal Service proposed including instructions in the DMM that refund requests for Registered Mail
Additionally, if these proposed changes were adopted, PS Form 3533,
The Postal Service received two formal responses to the revised proposed rule of January 3, 2014, one from a mailer and from a PC Postage provider.
The mailer requested that the Postal Service not eliminate the 10% assessment for postage refunds. The 10% will not change, but the threshold at which the 10% assessment changes to an hourly rate, and the hourly rate itself, will both be increased.
The comment from the PC Postage provider referenced certain refund and appeal assessments which were outside the scope of this rulemaking. The PC Postage provider expressed opposition to the current standards that provide for hourly charges when validating refunds to higher volume (postage refunds for) postage meter users. This commenter stated that these are not the same standards used for PC Postage appeals (when the end-users is denied a postage refund by the PC Postage provider). The commenter continued that processes used to validate refunds from PC Postage appeals should be equivalent to that used for postage meter refunds. This commenter also suggested that the Postal Service relax or eliminate assessments for processing postage refunds and appeals when customers make mistakes in printing postage indicia (and the Postal Service is not at fault). Although these comments fall outside of the scope of this rulemaking, the Postal Service provides the following clarifications:
• The refund assessment amounts in this proposed rule would not revise the current standards for providing PC postage refunds or appeals to adverse rulings by a PC Postage provider. The Postal Service does not make any assessment for postage refunds submitted electronically by PC Postage end-users to their provider within the established filing period(s). This includes postage refunds for unused, dated PC Postage indicia with a package identification code (PIC) made within 30-days from the date of printing and for unused, undated PC Postage without a PIC when made within 60 days from the date of printing.
• The Postal Service expanded the refund period (under DMM 604.9) for items with a package identification code from 10 days to 30 days in a final rule, published June 26, 2013, and effective July 28 (78 FR 38203-19), This effort served to provide customers additional time to reconcile their shipping records and to help reduce the amount of requests for appeals being received beyond the current 10 day refund filing period.
• Based on current records, approximately 75% of PC Postage appeals are submitted to USPS® outside of the established criteria. As a reminder, only the PC Postage
• Records also indicate that on average, only 25% of all appeals received can be granted as such and are assessed a charge. Further, less than 1% of those granted appeals would exceed the new threshold to be charged at the hourly assessment, as suggested by the provider.
• Finally, ordinary unused metered indicia postage refunds are not processed by the Postal Service in the same manner as PC Postage appeals. Year-to-date FY 2014 PC Postage refund appeal records indicate that, unlike most metered indicia refunds for envelopes not associated to a package identification code, more than 94% of the PC Postage refund appeals are for items bearing package identification codes. This requires that each label (sometimes numbering in the hundreds per refund request) to be manually researched using USPS® data archives to confirm that the postage was unused. In some cases, electronic scan data also exists for the associated package identification code, creating extenuating circumstances and making these refund determinations complex.
• The refund assessment process described in the proposed rule would not alter the current standards that provide for a 100% refund in instances where a service failure is evident or when USPS® is at fault.
The Postal Service will align the current assessments for processing postage refunds, in effect since 2003, with current costs as follows:
• The hourly factor used in various refund assessments will increase from $35.00 an hour to $50.00 an hour.
• The threshold for assessing postage refunds at the hourly factor will be updated from postage amounts exceeding $350.00 to postage amounts exceeding $500.00. The current 10% assessment below the threshold would remain unchanged.
• The Postal Service is adding standards to the DMM to provide customers with information on allowable refund periods for extra service fees that align with the revised claims filing periods (made effective January 26, 2014) to promote timely adjudication. Therefore, full refund requests for extra service fees, provided under the allowable standards for Registered Mail
• Additionally, PS Form 3533,
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows:
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.
A full refund (100%) may be made when:
e. Fees are paid for special handling, Certified Mail, USPS Tracking, Adult Signature, or Signature Confirmation, and the article fails to receive the extra service for which the fee is paid.
Refunds are not made for the following:
b. Collect on delivery (COD), Priority Mail Express insurance, insured mail, and Registered Mail fees, after the USPS accepts the article (even if the article is later withdrawn from the mail).
h. For fees paid for extra services, as allowed under 9.2.3, when refund request is made by the mailer less than 10 days, or more than 60 days, from the date the service was purchased, unless otherwise authorized by the manager, Revenue Field Accounting (see 608.8 for address).
* * * A charge of $50.00 per hour, or fraction thereof, is assessed for the workhours used to process the credit or refund. * * *
* * * For both types of unused metered indicia, submit refund requests as follows:
b. * * * Charges for processing a refund request for unused, dated meter indicia are as follows, depending on the total face value of the indicia:
1. When the total face value of the indicia is $500.00 or less, the amount refunded is 90% of the face value. USPS may process the refund payment via a no-fee postal money order.
2. When the total face value of the indicia is more than $500.00, the amount refunded is the total face value reduced by $50.00 per hour for the USPS time to process the refund, with a minimum charge of $50.00. The charge is $50.00 for each hour spent, with the last fraction of an hour treated as a full hour. Payment processing for refunds of $500.01 or more is through the Accounting Service Center.
Authorized users, or the commercial entity that prepared the mailing for the authorized user, must submit refund requests for undated, unused meter indicia under 9.3.1 and 9.3.2 as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) * * *
(A) The rebuttable presumption does not apply to metalworking oils/fluids containing chlorinated paraffins, if they are processed, through a tolling agreement, to reclaim metalworking oils/fluids. The presumption does apply to metalworking oils/fluids if such oils/fluids are recycled in any other manner, or disposed.
(B) The rebuttable presumption does not apply to used oils contaminated with chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) removed from refrigeration units where the CFCs are destined for reclamation. The rebuttable presumption does apply to used oils contaminated with CFCs that have been mixed with used oil from sources other than refrigeration units.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document amends the rules for the Amateur Radio Service by modifying the qualifying examination system to grant partial examination credit for certain expired amateur operator licenses, permits examinations to be administered remotely, and allows amateur stations to transmit certain additional emission types. The rule amendments are necessary to implement these changes. Additionally, this document amends certain rules to conform them to prior Commission decisions. The effect of this action is to enhance the usefulness of the amateur service rules by making the amateur service more accessible to former licensees and to allow amateur stations to transmit certain additional emission types.
Effective July 21, 2014.
William T. Cross, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-0680, or TTY (202) 418-7233.
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. By this action, the Commission amends the rules for the Amateur Radio Service by modifying the qualifying examination system to grant partial examination credit for certain expired amateur operator licenses.
2. Also, by this action, the Commission permits examinations to be administered remotely.
3. In addition, the Commission allows amateur stations to transmit certain additional emission types and makes certain minor, non-substantive amendments to the amateur service rules to reflect that the Commission previously eliminated the requirement that certain amateur radio service licensees pass a Morse code examination.
4. The rules that the Commission adopted in this
5. This
6. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This Report and Order does not contain new or modified information collection(s), subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, because businesses are not eligible for licensing in the amateur radio service, the Report and Order it does not contain any proposed new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
7. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(4).
8. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
Radio.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 97 as follows:
48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303. Interpret or
(c) * * *
(5)
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, a call sign obtained under the sequential or vanity call sign system will be reassigned to the station upon renewal or modification of a station license.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) A station licensee or station control operator may participate on behalf of an employer in an emergency preparedness or disaster readiness test or drill, limited to the duration and scope of such test or drill, and operational testing immediately prior to such test or drill. Tests or drills that are not government-sponsored are limited to a total time of one hour per week; except that no more than twice in any calendar year, they may be conducted for a period not to exceed 72 hours.
(f) * * *
(8) A RTTY or data emission having designators with A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; 1, 2, 7, 9 or X as the second symbol; and D or W as the third symbol is also authorized.
(10) A station having a control operator holding a Novice Class operator license or a Technician Class operator license may only transmit a CW emission using the international Morse code or phone emissions J3E and R3E.
(a) The administering VEs must give credit as specified below to an examinee holding any of the following license grants:
(b) The administering VEs must give credit to an examinee holding a CSCE for each element the CSCE indicates the examinee passed within the previous 365 days.
(a) Each written question set administered to an examinee must be prepared by a VE holding an Amateur Extra Class operator license. A written question set may also be prepared for the following elements by a VE holding an operator license of the class indicated:
(c) Each written question set administered to an examinee for an amateur operator license must be prepared, or obtained from a supplier, by the administering VEs according to instructions from the coordinating VEC.
(c) Each administering VE must observe the examinee throughout the entire examination. The administering VEs are responsible for the proper conduct and necessary supervision of each examination. The administering VEs must immediately terminate the examination upon failure of the examinee to comply with their instructions.
(f) No examination that has been compromised shall be administered to any examinee. The same question set may not be re-administered to the same examinee.
(g) [Reserved]
(h) Upon completion of each examination element, the administering VEs must immediately grade the examinee's answers. For examinations administered remotely, the administering VEs must grade the examinee's answers at the earliest practical opportunity. The administering VEs are responsible for determining the correctness of the examinee's answers.
(b) The VE session manager may carry on liaison functions between the VE team and the coordinating VEC.
(b) * * *
(2) Resolve all discrepancies and verify that the VEs' certifications are properly completed; and
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary Rule; Closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for commercial blueline tilefish in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. Commercial landings for blueline tilefish, as estimated by the Science and Research Director, are projected to reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) on June 23, 2014. Therefore, NMFS is closing the commercial sector for blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic EEZ on June 23, 2014, and it will remain closed until the start of the next fishing season, January 1, 2015. This closure is necessary to protect the blueline tilefish resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, June 23, 2014, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2015.
Catherine Hayslip, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes blueline tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
Given new stock assessment results that indicated the blueline tilefish stock is overfished and undergoing overfishing in the South Atlantic, NMFS published an emergency rule (79 FR 21636, April 17, 2014) to remove blueline tilefish from the deep-water complex and establish separate commercial and recreational ACLs and AMs for blueline tilefish in the EEZ of the South Atlantic. That emergency rule implemented a commercial ACL for blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic of 112,207 lb (50,896 kg), round weight and established in-season AMs for blueline tilefish to prevent the catch limit from being exceeded. The emergency rule (79 FR 21636, April 17, 2014) is effective April 17, 2014, through October 14, 2014, unless superseded by subsequent rulemaking. NMFS may extend the rule's effectiveness for an additional 186 days pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Under 50 CFR 622.193(aa)(1), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for blueline tilefish when the commercial ACL is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial ACL for South Atlantic blueline tilefish will have been reached by June 23, 2014. Accordingly, the commercial sector for South Atlantic blueline tilefish is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, June 23, 2014, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2015.
The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having blueline tilefish onboard must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such blueline tilefish prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, June 23, 2014. During the closure, all sale or purchase of blueline tilefish is prohibited and harvest or possession of blueline tilefish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187(b)(2) and 622.187(c)(1), respectively. These bag and possession limits apply in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested,
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of blueline tilefish and the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(aa)(1) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best available scientific information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial sector for blueline tilefish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures would be unnecessary because the rule itself has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure.
Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect blueline tilefish since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial ACL. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial ACL.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues final specifications for the 2014 Atlantic bluefish fishery, including annual catch limits, total allowable landings, commercial quotas and recreational harvest limits, and a recreational possession limit. This action establishes the allowable 2014 harvest levels and other management measures to achieve the target fishing mortality rate, consistent with the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan and the recommendations of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
The final specifications for the 2014 Atlantic bluefish fishery are effective July 21, 2014, through December 31, 2014.
Copies of the specifications document, including the supplemental Environmental Assessment and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/IRFA) and other supporting documents for the specifications, are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The specifications document is also accessible via the Internet at:
Carly Bari, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9224.
The Atlantic bluefish fishery is managed cooperatively by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The management unit for bluefish specified in the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) is U.S. waters of the western Atlantic Ocean. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and J. The regulations requiring annual specifications are found at § 648.162.
The FMP requires the Council to recommend to NMFS, on an annual basis, an annual catch limit (ACL), annual catch target (ACT), and total allowable landings (TAL) that will control fishing mortality (F). The Council may also recommend a research set-aside (RSA) quota, which is deducted from the bluefish TALs (after any applicable transfer) in an amount proportional to the percentage of the overall TAL as allocated to the commercial and recreational sectors.
Pursuant to § 648.162, the annual review process for bluefish requires that the Council's Bluefish Monitoring Committee and Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) review and make recommendations based on the best available data. Based on the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee and SSC, the Council makes a recommendation to the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator. Because this FMP is a joint plan, the Commission also meets during the annual specification process to adopt complementary measures.
The Council's recommendations must include supporting documentation concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations. NMFS is responsible for reviewing these recommendations to ensure that they achieve the FMP objectives, and may modify them if they do not. NMFS then publishes proposed specifications based on the recommendations in the
A description of the process used to estimate bluefish stock status and fishing mortality, as well as the process for deriving the ACL and associated quotas and harvest limits, is provided in the proposed rule and in the bluefish regulations at §§ 648.160 through 648.162 and is not repeated here. The stock is not overfished or experiencing overfishing, and the catch limits described below reflect the best available scientific information on bluefish. The final 2014 bluefish ABC, ACL, and ACT are specified at 24.432 million lb (11,082 mt).
The ACT is initially allocated between the recreational fishery (83 percent = 20.278 million lb (9,198 mt)) and the commercial fishery (17 percent = 4.153 million lb (1,884 mt)). After deducting an estimate of recreational discards (commercial discards are considered negligible), the recreational TAL is 16.927 million lb (7,678 mt) and the commercial TAL is 4.153 million lb (1,884 mt).
However, the FMP specifies that, if 17 percent of the ACT is less than 10.5 million lb, and the recreational fishery is not projected to land its harvest limit for the upcoming year, the commercial fishery may be allocated up to 10.5 million lb as its quota, provided that the combination of the projected recreational landings and the commercial quota does not exceed the ACT. The recreational harvest limit (RHL) would then be adjusted downward so that the ACT would be unchanged. The Council projected an estimated recreational harvest for 2014 of 13.179 million lb (5,978 mt). As such, the Council's proposed transfer of 3.340 million lb (1,515 mt) from the recreational sector to the commercial sector can be approved. This transfer results in an adjusted commercial quota of 7.494 million lb (3,399 mt), and an adjusted RHL of 13.587 million lb (6,163 mt).
Two projects that will utilize bluefish RSA were approved by NOAA's Grants Management Division. A total RSA quota of 99,000 lb (45 mt) was approved for use by these projects during 2014. Proportional adjustments of this amount to the commercial and recreational allocations result in a final commercial quota of 7.458 million lb (3,383 mt) and a final RHL of 13.523 million lb (6,134 mt).
The current recreational possession limit of up to 15 fish per person is maintained to achieve the RHL for 2014.
The final state commercial quotas for 2014 are shown in Table 1, based on the percentages specified in the FMP.
The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on April 28, 2014. One comment was received from an individual on the proposed rule.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Atlantic Bluefish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
This final rule does not duplicate, conflict, or overlap with any existing Federal rules.
The FRFA included in this final rule was prepared pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604(a), and incorporates the IRFA and a summary of analyses completed to support the action. A public copy of the EA/RIR/IRFA is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
The preamble to the proposed rule included a detailed summary of the analyses contained in the IRFA, and that discussion is not repeated here.
A description of the reasons why this action is being taken, and the objectives of and legal basis for this final rule are contained in the preambles to the proposed rule and this final rule and are not repeated here.
No changes to the proposed rule were required to be made as a result of public comment. The comment NMFS received did not raise specific issues regarding the economic analyses summarized in the IRFA or the economic impacts of the rule more generally. For a summary of the comment, and the response, refer to the “Comments and Responses” section of this preamble.
The Small Business Administration defines a small business in the commercial harvesting sector as a firm with receipts (gross revenues) of up to $5.0 and $19.0 million for shellfish and for finfish business, respectively. A small business in the recreational fishery is a firm with receipts of up to $7.0 million. The categories of small entities likely to be affected by this action include commercial and charter/party vessel owners holding an active Federal permit for Atlantic bluefish, as well as owners of vessels that fish for Atlantic bluefish in state waters. All federally permitted vessels fall into the definition of small businesses; thus, there would be no disproportionate impacts between large and small entities as a result of the final rule.
An active participant in the commercial sector was defined as any vessel that reported having landed 1 or more lb (0.45 kg) in the Atlantic bluefish fishery in 2011. The Northeast seafood dealer reports were used to identify 742 vessels that landed bluefish in states from Maine through North Carolina in 2011. However, the Northeast dealer database does not provide information about fishery participation in South Carolina, Georgia, or Florida. South Atlantic Trip Ticket reports were used to identify 768 vessels that landed bluefish in North Carolina, and 791 vessels that landed bluefish on Florida's east coast in 2011. Some of these vessels were also identified in the Northeast dealer data; therefore, double counting is possible. Bluefish landings in South Carolina and Georgia were near zero in 2011, representing a negligible proportion of the total bluefish landings along the Atlantic Coast. Therefore, this analysis assumed that no vessel activity for these two states took place in 2011. In recent years, approximately 2,000 party/charter vessels may have been active in the bluefish fishery and/or have caught bluefish.
No additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements are included in this final rule.
Specification of commercial quota, recreational harvest levels, and possession limits is constrained by the conservation objectives set forth in the
The 2014 RHL contained in this final rule is approximately 4 percent lower than the RHL in 2013. The 2014 RHL is greater than the total estimated recreational bluefish harvest for 2014, and therefore it does not constrain recreational bluefish harvest below a level that the fishery is anticipated to achieve. The possession limit for bluefish will remain at 15 fish per person, so there should be no impact on demand for party/charter vessel fishing and, therefore, no impact on revenues earned by party/charter vessels. No negative economic impacts on the recreational fishery are anticipated.
The impacts on revenues associated with the proposed RSA quota were analyzed and are expected to be minimal. Assuming that the full RSA quota 99,000 lb (45 mt) for 2014 is landed and sold to support the proposed research projects, then all of the participants in the fishery would benefit from the improved fisheries data yielded from each project.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide will be sent to all holders of Federal permits issued for the Atlantic bluefish fishery.
In addition, copies of this final rule and guide (i.e., permit holder letter) are available from NMFS (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture.
Notice of regulatory review and request for comments.
This document announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) plans to review the Mango Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Order). The review will be conducted under criteria contained in Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
Comments must be received by August 19, 2014.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this notice. Comments may be submitted on the Internet at:
Jeanette Palmer, Marketing Specialist, Promotion and Economics Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (202) 720-9915; facsimile (202) 205-2800; or electronic mail:
The Order (7 CFR part 1206) is authorized under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (Act) (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425).
The Order became effective on November 3, 2004. It is administered by the National Mango Board (Board) with oversight by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The program is financed by an assessment of three quarters of a cent per pound on first handlers and importers of 500,000 pounds or more of mangos annually. The Order specifies that first handlers are responsible for submitting assessments to the Board on a monthly basis and maintaining records necessary to verify their reporting. Importers are responsible for paying assessments on mangos imported for consumption in the United States through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The purpose of the Order is to carry out an effective, continuous, and coordinated program of promotion, research, and information designed to strengthen mangos' competitive position, and to maintain and expand the domestic market for mangos.
The Board is composed of 18 members as follows: 8 Importers; 2 domestic producers; 1 first handler; and 7 foreign producers. Nominations for importer, domestic producer, and first handler members are solicited by importers, domestic producers, and first handlers, respectively. Nominations for foreign producer members are solicited from foreign producers and foreign producer associations. Members are appointed to the Board by the Secretary of Agriculture and serve a term of three years.
The AMS published in the
The purpose of the review is to determine whether the Order should be continued without change, amended, or rescinded (consistent with the objectives of the Act) to minimize the impacts on small entities. AMS will consider the following factors: (1) The continued need for the Order; (2) the nature of complaints or comments received from the public concerning the Order; (3) the complexity of the Order; (4) the extent to which the Order overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local regulations; and (5) the length of time since the Order has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the Order.
Written comments, views, opinions, and other information regarding the Order's impact on small businesses are invited.
Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; solicitation of comments.
The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is considering whether to propose an administrative rule that would facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community, to more effectively implement the special political and trust relationship that Congress has established between that community and the United States. The purpose of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) is to
Comments must be submitted on or before August 19, 2014.
You may submit comments on this ANPRM by any of the methods listed below.
1.
2.
John Strylowski, Office of the Secretary, telephone (202) 208-3071 (not a toll-free number),
Please direct all comments to Regulation Identifier Number 1090-AB05. The Department of the Interior intends to include all comments received in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
The Secretary is considering whether to propose an administrative rule that would facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community. We are interested in hearing from leaders and members of the Native Hawaiian community and of federally recognized tribes in the continental United States. We also welcome comments and information from the State of Hawaii and its agencies, other government agencies, and other members of the public.
To be most useful, and most likely to inform decisions on the content of a potential administrative rule, comments should:
—Be specific;
—Be substantive;
—Explain the reasoning behind the comments; and
—Address the issues outlined in the ANPRM.
For the purpose of this ANPRM, we are seeking input solely on questions related to a potential administrative rule to facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community. Because promulgating a rule would not (1) alter the fundamental nature of the political and trust relationship established by Congress between the United States and the Native Hawaiian community, (2) authorize compensation for past wrongs, or (3) have any direct impact on the status of the Hawaiian home lands, we are not seeking comments on those topics.
Furthermore, at this time, we are not seeking comments on what the contents of a reorganized Native Hawaiian government's constitution or other governing document (if one were adopted) might include, how that Native Hawaiian government might be structured, or what powers that Native Hawaiian government might exercise.
Rather, we are seeking comments solely on five threshold questions:
• Should the Secretary propose an administrative rule that would facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community?
• Should the Secretary assist the Native Hawaiian community in reorganizing its government, with which the United States could reestablish a government-to-government relationship?
• If so, what process should be established for drafting and ratifying a reorganized Native Hawaiian government's constitution or other governing document?
• Should the Secretary instead rely on the reorganization of a Native Hawaiian government through a process established by the Native Hawaiian community and facilitated by the State of Hawaii, to the extent such a process is consistent with Federal law?
• If so, what conditions should the Secretary establish as prerequisites to Federal acknowledgment of a government-to-government relationship with the reorganized Native Hawaiian government?
In addition to receiving comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, U.S. mail, courier services, and hand delivery, we will conduct a series of public meetings on the islands of Hawaii, Kauai, Lānai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu, and a series of in-person consultations with federally recognized tribes in the continental United States. We will announce locally the time and place of each meeting and will give public notice of each tribal consultation. At these meetings and consultations, we will accept both oral and written communications. We strongly encourage Native Hawaiian organizations and federally recognized tribes in the continental United States to hold their own meetings to develop comments on the issues outlined in this ANPRM, and to share the outcomes of those meetings with us.
All of the citations listed in this ANPRM will be available on the Department of the Interior's Office of Native Hawaiian Relations' Web site at
The United States has a unique political and trust relationship with federally recognized tribes across the country, as set forth in the United States Constitution, treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, administrative regulations, and judicial decisions. The Federal government's relationship with these tribes is guided by a trust responsibility—a long-standing, paramount commitment to protect their unique rights and ensure their well-being, while respecting their tribal sovereignty. In recognition of that special commitment—and in fulfillment of the solemn obligations it entails—the United States, acting through the Department of the Interior, has developed processes to help tribes in the continental United States to reorganize their governments and to establish government-to-government
Over many decades, Congress has enacted more than 150 statutes recognizing and implementing a special political and trust relationship with the Native Hawaiian community. Among other things, these statutes create programs and services for members of the Native Hawaiian community that are in many respects analogous to, but separate from, the programs and services that Congress has enacted for federally recognized tribes in the continental United States. But during this same period, the United States has not partnered with Native Hawaiians on a government-to-government basis, at least partly because there has been no formal, organized Native Hawaiian government since 1893, when the United States helped overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii.
In recent years, the Department has increasingly heard from Native Hawaiians who assert that their community's opportunities to thrive would be significantly bolstered by reorganizing a sovereign Native Hawaiian government that could engage the United States in a government-to-government relationship, exercise inherent sovereign powers of self-governance and self-determination, and enhance the implementation of programs and services that Congress has created specifically to benefit the Native Hawaiian community.
We would now like to hear from leaders and members of the Native Hawaiian community and of federally recognized tribes in the continental United States about whether, and how, the Department should facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community. Meaningful consultation and collaboration with both the Native Hawaiian community and the federally recognized tribes in the continental United States will be essential to the Department in developing any policy regarding potential reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community.
At the time of the first documented encounter between Native Hawaiians and Europeans in 1778, “the Native Hawaiian people lived in a highly organized, self-sufficient subsistence social system based on a communal land tenure system with a sophisticated language, culture, and religion.” 20 U.S.C. 7512(2);
Throughout the nineteenth century and until 1893, the United States “recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Nation,” “extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government,” and entered into several treaties with the Hawaiian monarch. 42 U.S.C. 11701(6);
By 1919, the decline in the Native Hawaiian population—by some estimates from several hundred thousand in 1778 to only 22,600—led the Secretary to recommend to Congress that land be set aside to help Native Hawaiians reestablish their traditional way of life.
When Hawaii was admitted to the Union in 1959, Congress vested authority in the State to administer HHCA lands subject to certain limitations. 73 Stat. 4 (1959). Congress also placed additional lands into a trust to be managed by the State for purposes that included “the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians, as defined in the [HHCA], as amended.”
Since Hawaii's admission to the Union, Congress has enacted dozens of statutes on behalf of Native Hawaiians pursuant to the United States' recognized political relationship and trust responsibility. Congress has:
• Established special Native Hawaiian programs in the areas of health care, education, loans, and employment.
• Enacted statutes to preserve Native Hawaiian culture, language, and historical sites.
• Extended to the Native Hawaiian people many of “the same rights and privileges accorded to American Indian, Alaska Native, Eskimo, and Aleut communities” by classifying Native Hawaiians as “Native Americans” under numerous Federal statutes. 42 U.S.C. 11701(19);
In a number of enactments, Congress has expressly identified Native Hawaiians as “a distinct and unique indigenous people with a historical continuity to the original inhabitants of the Hawaiian archipelago,” 42 U.S.C. 11701(1);
In 1993, Congress enacted a joint resolution to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians. 107 Stat. 1510 (1993). In that Joint Resolution, Congress acknowledged that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii thwarted Native Hawaiian efforts to exercise their rights to “self-determination” and “inherent sovereignty,” and stated that “the Native Hawaiian people are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their ancestral territory, and their cultural identity in accordance with their own spiritual and traditional beliefs, customs, practices, language, and social institutions.”
Following a series of hearings and meetings with the Native Hawaiian community in 1999, the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Justice issued “From Mauka to Makai: The River of Justice Must Flow Freely,” a report on the reconciliation process between the Federal government and Native Hawaiians. The report recommended as its top priority that “the Native Hawaiian people should have self-determination over their own affairs within the framework of Federal law.” Department of the Interior and Department of Justice,
In 2000, in
In recent statutes, Congress has again recognized that “Native Hawaiians have a cultural, historic, and land-based link to the indigenous people who exercised sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands, and that group has never relinquished its claims to sovereignty or its sovereign lands.” 114 Stat. 2968 (2000);
Although Congress has repeatedly acknowledged its special political and trust relationship with the Native Hawaiian community since the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii more than a century ago, the Federal government has not maintained a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community as an organized, sovereign entity. Reestablishing a government-to-government relationship with a reorganized sovereign Native Hawaiian government that has been acknowledged by the United States could enhance Federal agencies' ability to implement the established relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian community, while strengthening the self-determination of Hawaii's indigenous people and facilitating the preservation of their language, customs, heritage, health, and welfare.
The Federal government has long consulted with Native Hawaiians under several Federal statutes, including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470a(d)(6)(B), 470h-2(a)(2)(D); the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3002(c)(2); and the Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act, 109 Stat. 360 (1995). And for decades, Native Hawaiians have sought to formally reorganize a government through a community- or State-facilitated process. In recent years, there have been calls from the Native Hawaiian community for the Federal government to “assist with the creation of a Native Hawaiian [governing] entity” to address the legal status of the community and to reestablish a government-to-government relationship, in part to more effectively implement the special political and trust relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian community. Department of the Interior & Department of Justice,
In 2001, a group of Native Hawaiian individuals and organizations brought suit challenging Native Hawaiians' exclusion from the Department's acknowledgment regulations (25 CFR part 83), which establish a uniform process for Federal acknowledgment of Indian tribes. The Ninth Circuit upheld the geographic limitation in the part 83 regulations, concluding that there was a rational basis for the Department to distinguish between Native Hawaiians and tribes in the continental United States, given the history of separate congressional enactments regarding the two groups and the unique history of Hawaii. The Ninth Circuit also noted the question whether Native Hawaiians “constitute one large tribe . . . or whether there are, in fact, several different tribal groups.”
Also in 2004, Congress authorized the Department's Office of Native Hawaiian Relations to discharge the Secretary's responsibilities for matters related to the Native Hawaiian community.
Legislation has been proposed in Congress to reorganize a single Native Hawaiian governing entity to which the United States could relate on a
The 2010 House and Senate bills provided that the Native Hawaiian government “shall be vested with the inherent powers and privileges of self-government of a native government under existing law,” including the inherent powers “to determine its own membership criteria [and] its own membership” and to negotiate and implement agreements with the United States or with the State of Hawaii. The bills would have required protection of the civil rights and liberties of Natives and non-Natives alike, as guaranteed in the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301 et seq., and would have barred the Native Hawaiian government and its members from conducting gaming activities under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., or other authority. The bills further would have provided that the Native Hawaiian government and its members would
The bills would have acknowledged the existing special political and trust relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States, and would have established a process for reorganizing a Native Hawaiian governing entity. Some in Congress, however, expressed a preference not for recognizing a reorganized Native Hawaiian government by legislation, but for applying the Department's Federal acknowledgment process to the Native Hawaiian community.
The State of Hawaii, in Act 195, Session Laws of Hawaii 2011, expressed its support for reorganizing and federally recognizing a Native Hawaiian government, while also providing for state recognition of the Native Hawaiian people as “the only indigenous, aboriginal, maoli people of Hawaii.” Haw. Rev. Stat. 10H-1 (2013);
In addition, Native Hawaiian community representatives have asked the Department to provide an administrative avenue to facilitate reestablishing a government-to-government relationship between that community and the United States. Most recently, in comments on the Department's discussion draft of potential revisions to the Federal acknowledgment regulations in 25 CFR part 83, which expressly do not apply outside the continental United States, several Native Hawaiian organizations requested an analogous administrative process for the Native Hawaiian community.
This ANPRM seeks input on whether the Secretary should promulgate an administrative rule that would facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community. The goals of the rule would be to more effectively implement the special political and trust relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States, which Congress has long recognized, and to better implement programs and services that Congress has created to benefit the Native Hawaiian community. The rule could focus on either:
• A Federal process to assist the Native Hawaiian community in reorganizing a government; or
• Reestablishing a government-to-government relationship with a Native Hawaiian government reorganized through a process established by the Native Hawaiian community and facilitated by the State of Hawaii. This process would have to be consistent with Federal law.
If the Department were to proceed with an administrative rule to assist the Native Hawaiian community in reorganizing a Native Hawaiian government, the rule would not determine who ultimately would be a citizen or member of that government. For that reason, this ANPRM does
But a Federal administrative rule concerning reorganization of a Native Hawaiian government would need to determine who can participate in the reorganization, including who would be eligible to assist in drafting a constitution or other governing document, and who would be eligible to vote in a ratification referendum. In discussing that issue, commenters may wish to consider observations made by members of the Supreme Court in
In defining the persons who would be eligible to participate in any reorganization of a Native Hawaiian government, certain other legislative approaches may be instructive. For example, in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA), Congress exercised its trust responsibility to set aside Hawaiian home lands for homesteading by “native Hawaiians,” a category Congress defined as “any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778.” Act of July 9, 1921, ch. 42, sec. 201(a)(7), 42 Stat. 108;
A second approach is found in the State of Hawaii's Act 195, Session Laws of Hawaii 2011, legislation designed to facilitate the reorganization of a Native Hawaiian government. As amended in 2012 and 2013, Act 195 provides that “qualified Native Hawaiians” can participate in reorganizing a Native Hawaiian government, where the term “qualified Native Hawaiian” is defined to mean an individual 18 years or older who has maintained a significant cultural connection to the Native Hawaiian community and who:
• Is determined to be a descendant of the aboriginal peoples who, before 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian islands, the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii;
• Is determined to be one of the indigenous native peoples of Hawaii and to be eligible in 1921 for the programs authorized by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, or a direct lineal descendant of that individual; or
• Meets the ancestry requirements of Kamehameha Schools or of any Hawaiian registry program of the office of Hawaiian affairs.
The state law does not specify the documents or evidence that the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission should deem adequate to verify ancestry or to verify that an individual “[h]as maintained a significant cultural, social, or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community.”
Another possible approach is found in legislation proposed in Congress to reorganize a Native Hawaiian government. The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2010 contained requirements that were similar to state Act 195's requirements, as to both ancestry and cultural, social, or civic connection to the community. This Federal legislation provided considerable detail about the documentation an individual would have to provide to demonstrate both ancestry and the kinds of significant cultural, social, or civic connections that evidence an individual's membership in the political community. The legislation stated that ancestry could be verified by presenting certain types of documentary evidence of lineal descent, identifying a lineal ancestor on the Kingdom of Hawaii's 1890 Census, or producing sworn affidavits from at least two “qualified Native Hawaiian constituents” (for those lacking birth certificates under certain circumstances).
The Federal legislation further provided that an individual could demonstrate a significant cultural, social, or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community if he or she satisfied at least two of ten criteria relating to current state of residence, eligibility to be a beneficiary of programs under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, residence on or ownership interest in “kuleana land,” participation in Hawaiian language schools or programs, membership in Native Hawaiian membership organizations, and regard as Native Hawaiian by the Native Hawaiian community.
This ANPRM seeks input on which individuals, as members of the Native Hawaiian community, should be eligible to participate in the process of reorganizing a sovereign Native Hawaiian government that could reestablish a relationship with the Federal government. The ANPRM does not seek input on the membership or citizenship criteria that the Native Hawaiian community may adopt in its constitution or other governing document; that decision belongs to the Native Hawaiian community.
The Department's existing regulatory frameworks for reorganizing, preparing rolls for, and acknowledging Indian tribes in the continental United States may inform the analogous processes that Native Hawaiians may ultimately propose for reorganization or acknowledgment. Tribal officials have worked with these regulatory provisions for decades, and their experiences likely will be helpful in responding to this ANPRM.
The Department has established a regulatory framework for members of Indian tribes to adopt new governing documents and reorganize their tribal governments. The framework includes procedures that identify eligible voters, provide notice to those voters, provide equal opportunities to participate, establish minimum participation standards to ensure that the outcome of the voting reflects the will of the majority, and provide for the Secretary's approval of the governing document.
Federal regulations also provide a framework for the Secretary to compile rolls for some tribes for limited purposes. Those regulations provide for
The Department's regulatory framework for Federal acknowledgment of Indian tribes, found in 25 CFR Part 83, establishes uniform administrative standards and procedures for identifying, defining, and acknowledging those Indian groups that exist as tribes.
The acknowledgment of the Indian group under part 83 recognizes or reaffirms a special political and trust relationship with the United States. Here, however, the Native Hawaiian community already has a congressionally recognized special political and trust relationship with the United States, but lacks an organized governing body, a constitution, settled membership criteria, and a complete membership list, which petitioners under part 83 have. The experiences of tribes in the continental United States with part 83, like their experiences with the other parts of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations discussed above, nonetheless may provide useful guidance for the Native Hawaiian community. For example, the mandatory criteria in part 83 help clarify what constitutes a political community.
Given the Native Hawaiians' unique situation, one of the topics on which this ANPRM seeks input is whether and how to promulgate a distinct regulatory framework for the Native Hawaiian community, for purposes such as:
• Identifying those persons of Native Hawaiian descent who are part of the political community and should be eligible to participate in the reorganization by virtue of verifiable cultural, social, or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community; and
• Identifying procedures for adopting a constitution or other governing document, should the Native Hawaiian community indicate that it would like to do so.
As described above, Congress has consistently enacted programs and services expressly and specifically for the Native Hawaiian community that are, in many respects, analogous to, but separate from, the programs and services that Congress has enacted for federally recognized tribes in the continental United States. Generally, Native Hawaiians have not been eligible for Federal Indian programs and services unless Congress expressly and specifically declared them eligible. Consistent with that approach, the Department of the Interior does not foresee that a Federal rule to facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community would alter or affect the programs and services that the United States currently provides to federally recognized tribes in the continental United States. Congress has enacted more than 150 statutes expressly affecting Native Hawaiians, and it is these laws that define the scope of Federal programs and services for Native Hawaiians.
Given that the Secretary is considering whether to propose an administrative rule to facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with an indigenous people, the knowledge, expertise, and input of officials from federally recognized tribes in the continental United States, including those tribes that have reorganized their own sovereign governments or have reestablished a government-to-government relationship with the United States, will be important. So, along with a series of public meetings in Hawaii, we will conduct a series of formal, in-person consultations with officials of federally recognized tribes in various regions of the continental United States during the public-comment period for this ANPRM. We will give public notice of each tribal consultation, and we will accept both oral and written communications. Tribal consultations on this ANPRM will be conducted in accordance with Executive Order 13175, 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000); the Presidential Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Tribal Consultation, 74 FR 57881 (Nov. 9, 2009); and the Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes.
If the Department ultimately decides to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the NPRM's preamble will include a tribal summary impact statement that reflects comments received from tribal officials in response to this ANPRM. Publication of an NPRM also would open a second round of tribal consultation and another formal comment period to allow for further input and refinements before publishing a final rule.
We are particularly interested in receiving comments on the following questions relating to an administrative rule we may develop concerning the potential reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community:
1. Should the Secretary propose an administrative rule that would facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community?
2. What role, if any, should the Department of the Interior—exercising the authorities described in 25 U.S.C. 2, 25 U.S.C. 9, 43 U.S.C. 1457, and other statutes—play in facilitating the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community?
3. Should there be a reorganization of a Native Hawaiian government in order to reestablish and maintain a government-to-government relationship between the Native Hawaiian community and the United States?
4. If a Native Hawaiian government is reorganized, under what conditions should the Secretary federally acknowledge it and thus reestablish a government-to-government relationship?
5. What features, including any within 25 CFR parts 61, 62, 81, and 83 or other regulations, should the Secretary incorporate in a proposed administrative rule addressing potential reorganization or acknowledgment of a Native Hawaiian government?
6. If the Secretary were to propose a rule to assist in reorganizing a Native Hawaiian government, what should be the criteria for persons to be included
7. To be included on the roll, what should constitute adequate evidence or verification that a person has Native Hawaiian ancestry?
8. To be included on the roll, what should constitute adequate evidence or verification that a person has a significant cultural, social, or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community?
9. To be included on the roll, what significance, if any, should be given to the fact that a person is potentially eligible under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA), Act of July 9, 1921, ch. 42, 42 Stat. 108, as amended? To the extent that this is a relevant criterion, what process should be used to identify persons who are potentially eligible under the HHCA, as amended?
10. If the Secretary were to propose a rule to assist in reorganizing a Native Hawaiian government, what should be the process for preparing a roll of persons who would be eligible to participate in reorganizing a Native Hawaiian government?
11. What role, if any, should the Secretary play in establishing, operating, or approving the process for preparing such a roll?
12. What role, if any, should be played by the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission established under Hawaii state law to prepare the Kanaiolowalu registry?
13. If the Secretary were to propose a rule to assist in reorganizing a Native Hawaiian government, what should be the process for drafting a constitution or other governing document for a Native Hawaiian government, and what should be the Secretary's role in providing such assistance?
14. How should the drafters of a constitution or other governing document be selected?
15. If the Secretary were to propose a rule to assist in reorganizing a Native Hawaiian government, what should be the process for ratifying and approving a constitution or other governing document for a Native Hawaiian government?
16. Should there be a minimum turnout requirement for any referendum to ratify a Native Hawaiian constitution or other governing document?
17. In addition to being ratified by a majority of all qualified Native Hawaiians who participate in a ratification referendum, should a Native Hawaiian constitution or other governing document also have to be ratified by a majority of all qualified Native Hawaiians who participate in the ratification referendum and are potentially eligible under the HHCA, as amended?
18. Should the Secretary have the responsibility to approve or disapprove a Native Hawaiian constitution or other governing document? If so, what factors, if any, other than consistency with Federal law, should be considered? For example, should the Secretary's approval depend on substantive issues (e.g., the constitution's safeguards for civil rights and liberties), procedural issues (e.g., lost or destroyed ballots, wrongful denial of ballots, etc.), or both?
19. Should reorganization of a Native Hawaiian government occur through a process established by the Native Hawaiian community and facilitated by the State of Hawaii, rather than through a Federal process? This non-Federal process would have to be consistent with Federal law and satisfy conditions established by the Secretary as prerequisites to Federal acknowledgment. We seek views on each of the following as a potential condition for Federal acknowledgment of a Native Hawaiian government that has already been reorganized through a community-established, State-facilitated process:
• Acknowledgment by the State of Hawaii.
• A Native Hawaiian constitution (or other governing document) that—
○ Safeguards the civil rights and liberties of Natives and non-Natives alike, as guaranteed in the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, 25 U.S.C. 1301-1304;
○ Has been ratified by a majority vote of “qualified Native Hawaiians,” as defined in Haw. Rev. Stat. 10H-3(a) (2013); and
○ Has
• Any other criterion that should be included as a condition for Federal acknowledgment of an already reorganized Native Hawaiian government.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on the September 26, 2013, proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the contiguous U.S. distinct population segment (DPS) of the Canada lynx (
In order to fully consider and incorporate public comment, the Service requests submittal of comments by close of business on July 21, 2014. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Jodi Bush, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Ecological Services Field Office, 585 Shepard Way, Suite 1, Helena, MT 59601; telephone (406-449-5225); or facsimile (406-449-5339). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the contiguous U.S. DPS of the Canada lynx (which we refer to as the Canada lynx DPS in the remainder of this document) that was published in the
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The distribution of the Canada lynx in the contiguous United States;
(b) The amount and distribution of Canada lynx habitat in the contiguous United States;
(c) What areas occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain features essential for the conservation of the species we should include in the designation and why; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their probable impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on the Canada lynx and proposed critical habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation; in particular, we seek information on the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
(6) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the DEA is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic impacts and the description of the environmental impacts in the draft environmental assessment is complete and accurate.
(7) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat, as discussed in the associated documents of the draft economic analysis, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
(8) Whether any areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (78 FR 59430) during the initial comment period from September 26, 2013, to December 26, 2013, please do not resubmit them. Any such comments are incorporated as part of the public record of this rulemaking, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning critical habitat will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. The final decision may differ from the proposed rule, based on our review of all information we receive during the comment periods.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule, DEA, or draft environmental assessment by one of the methods listed in the
If you submit a comment via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be available for public inspection on
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for the Canada lynx DPS in this document. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the Canada lynx DPS, refer to the proposed revised designation of critical habitat published in the
On March 24, 2000, the Service published a final rule in the
On September 26, 2013, we published a proposed rule to revise the designation of critical habitat for the Canada lynx DPS (78 FR 59430). We proposed to designate approximately 41,547 square miles (mi
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
As we indicated in our September 26, 2013, proposed rule (78 FR 59430), we are evaluating information from several national forests in Montana that have refined their mapped Canada lynx habitat. These refinements may result in changes (reductions, additions, or both) to the critical habitat boundaries designated in the final rule for units 3 and 5. Additionally, the Service continues to work with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Wyoming to determine the most appropriate boundary for the southern and southeastern critical habitat additions to Unit 5 that we described in the proposed rule. In the final rule, we anticipate some changes to units 3 and 5 because of these refinements, which are based on the best available habitat mapping information.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider, among other factors, the additional regulatory benefits that an area would receive through the analysis under section 7 of the Act addressing the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies); the educational benefits of identifying areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed species; and any ancillary benefits triggered by existing local, State, or Federal laws as a result of the critical habitat designation.
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to incentivize or result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of Canada lynx, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the species' presence and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased protection of Canada lynx habitat due to protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice, actions with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for projects undertaken, authorized, funded, or otherwise permitted by Federal agencies.
The final decision on whether to exclude any areas in accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, we have prepared a DEA concerning the proposed revised critical habitat designation, which is available for review and comment (see
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities and projects that may occur in the area proposed for critical habitat
The probable economic impact of a proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat (e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of all efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e., conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated). The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts are those that would not be expected to occur in the absence of a critical habitat designation for the species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs arising from the species' listing under the Act. These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of critical habitat should we choose to conduct an optional section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from this proposed revised designation of critical habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of critical habitat for the Canada lynx DPS (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014). We began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed revised designation of critical habitat to focus our analysis on the key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out the geographic areas in which the critical habitat designation is unlikely to result in probable incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e., absent critical habitat designation) and includes probable economic impacts where land and water use may be subject to conservation plans, land management plans, best management practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal listing status of the species. The screening analysis filters out particular areas of critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors that may incur probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation. The screening analysis also assesses whether proposed critical habitat units are unoccupied by the species, may require additional management or conservation efforts as a result of the critical habitat designation, and may incur incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis and the information contained in our IEM are what we consider our DEA of the proposed revised critical habitat designation for the Canada lynx DPS, which is summarized in the narrative below.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent with the Executive Orders' regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis under the Act may take into consideration both direct and indirect impacts to affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If sufficient data are available, we assess, to the extent practicable, the probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas proposed for revised critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Canada lynx DPS, we first identified, in the IEM dated April 18, 2014, probable incremental economic impacts associated with the following categories of activities: Agriculture, Border Protection, Conservation/Restoration, Development, Fire Management, Forest Management, Mining, Oil and Gas, Recreation, Renewable Energy, Silviculture/Timber, Transportation, Tribes, and Utilities. We considered each industry or category individually. Additionally, we considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; it only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies.
Because the Canada lynx DPS has been listed as threatened under the Act since 2000, Federal agencies already are required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement in areas where Canada lynx may be present and that may affect the species. If we finalize this proposed revised critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process that already considers jeopardy to the listed DPS. Because all of the areas proposed as revised critical habitat are currently occupied by Canada lynx populations, their designation will not result in new areas in which section 7 consultations would be required. Therefore, disproportionate impacts to any geographic area or sector are not likely as a result of the critical habitat designation.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the effects attributable to the Canada lynx DPS being listed and those likely to result from critical habitat designation (i.e., the difference between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards). Because the designation of critical habitat for the Canada lynx DPS was not proposed concurrently with the listing, we are better able to discern, based on a comparison of the history of section 7 consultations in the absence of critical habitat and consultations since the previous designation in 2009, which impacts are attributable to the DPS's listing and which are likely to result solely from the revised critical habitat designation currently proposed. Additionally, the following specific circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical and biological features identified for critical habitat are the same features essential for the life requisites of the species; (2) all areas proposed for revised designation of critical habitat are currently occupied by Canada lynx populations; (3) 89 percent of the area currently proposed for designation has been designated as Canada lynx critical habitat since March 2009, and another 4.8 percent was designated lynx critical habitat from
The proposed revised critical habitat designation for the Canada lynx DPS includes approximately 41,547 mi
Unit 1 includes 11,162 mi
Because all the areas proposed as revised designated Canada lynx critical habitat are occupied by Canada lynx, consultation under section 7 of the Act is already required for projects in these areas that may affect Canada lynx. These consultations normally focus on potential impacts to Canada lynx foraging habitat, in particular winter snowshoe hare habitats. In these areas, any actions that may affect the Canada lynx or its habitat would also affect designated critical habitat. It is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be recommended to address the adverse modification standard over and above those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the Canada lynx DPS. Further, because most (89 percent) of the proposed area has been designated as critical habitat for Canada lynx since 2009, consultations in these areas already must address the adverse modification standard, and no additional conservation measures or associated administrative or other costs are expected. Therefore, additional administrative costs are only expected in the 11 percent of the proposed critical habitat that is not already designated. While the additional analysis necessary to address adverse modification in these areas will require time and resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service, we believe that, in most circumstances, these costs would be predominantly administrative in nature and would not be significant.
Areas proposed for designation that are not currently designated include: (1) All of Unit 4 (1,999 mi
The annual administrative burden to address adverse modification in areas proposed but not currently designated as critical habitat is unlikely to reach $100 million. Therefore, future probable incremental economic impacts are not likely to exceed $100 million in any single year and disproportionate impacts to any geographic area or sector are not likely as a result of the proposed revised critical habitat designation.
As we stated above, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA and the draft environmental assessment, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude areas from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the areas outweigh the benefits of including the areas, provided the exclusions will not result in the extinction of this DPS.
In our September 26, 2013, proposed rule (78 FR 59430), we indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes and executive orders until we had evaluated the probable effects on landowners and stakeholders and the resulting probable economic impacts of the designation. Following our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat for the Canada lynx DPS, we have affirmed or amended our determinations below. Specifically, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself, and, therefore, are not required to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7 only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. There is no requirement under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small entities are directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if promulgated, the proposed revised critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed revised designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed revised critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial RFA analysis is not required.
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical habitat for the Canada lynx DPS in a takings implications assessment. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat affects only Federal actions. Although private parties that receive Federal funding or assistance or that require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. The economic analysis found that no significant economic impacts are likely to result from the designation of critical habitat for the Canada lynx DPS. Because the Act's critical habitat protection requirements apply only to Federal agency actions, few conflicts between critical habitat and private property rights are anticipated from this designation. Based on information contained in the economic analysis assessment and described within this document, it is not likely that economic impacts to a property owner would be of a sufficient magnitude to support a takings action. Therefore, the takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical habitat for the Canada lynx DPS would not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the revised designation.
When the range of a species includes States within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, pursuant to that court's ruling in
The draft environmental assessment presents the purpose of and need for critical habitat designation; the proposed action and alternatives; and an evaluation of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives under the requirements of NEPA as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR part 1500
The draft environmental assessment will be used by the Service to decide whether or not critical habitat will be designated as proposed; if the proposed action requires refinement, or if another alternative is appropriate; or if further analyses are needed through preparation of an environmental impact statement. If the proposed action is selected as
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Montana Ecological Services Field Office, Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of Meetings.
The Wenatchee-Okanogan Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Wenatchee, Washington. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Title II of the Act. These meetings are open to the public. The purpose of these meetings is to review projects proposed for RAC consideration under Title II of the Act.
The meetings will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on the following dates:
• July 22, 2014.
• July 23, 2014
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meetings prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meetings will be held at the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest (NF) Headquarters Office, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, Washington.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Robin DeMario, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 509-664-9292 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site:
On February 14, 2014, GE Transportation submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facilities within Subzones 247A and 247B, in Lawrence Park and Grove City, Pennsylvania.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On April 1, 2014, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the
Laurel LaCivita or Erin Begnal, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4243 or (202) 482-1442, respectively.
On April 1, 2014, the Department published the
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).
The product covered by this antidumping duty order is magnesium metal from the PRC, which includes primary and secondary alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by this order includes blends of primary and secondary magnesium.
The subject merchandise includes the following alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other shapes; magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into rasping, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and other shapes; and products that contain 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, magnesium, by weight, and that have been entered into the United States as conforming to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy”
The scope of this order excludes: (1) All forms of pure magnesium, including chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight, that do not conform to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy”
The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under items 8104.19.00, and 8104.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS items are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
As explained above, in the
After issuing the
The Department determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
Additionally, consistent with the Department's refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases, because the Department determined that TMI had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, any suspended entries that entered under TMI's antidumping duty case number (
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice of final results of the administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For TMI, which claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from the rate assigned to TMI in the most recently completed review of the company; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters who are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but who have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 141.49 percent;
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On April 21, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan and the United Kingdom.
Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0410.
On April 21, 2011, the Department published, and invited interested parties to comment on, the
The Department resumed these reviews effective November 29, 2013, pursuant to court judgment.
The products covered by the orders are ball bearings and parts thereof. Imports of these products are classified under the following Harmonized Tariff
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to these administrative reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded is in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
In the Post-Preliminary Analysis, we stated our intent to rescind the administrative review of ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan in part, for Tsubakimoto Precision Products Co., Ltd. (Tsubakimoto). Because no interested parties provided comments concerning our intent to rescind in part, we are rescinding the Japan review with respect to Tsubakimoto.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made revisions and corrected programming and other errors in the weighted-average dumping margins which we included in the
We determine that the weighted-average dumping margins on ball bearings and parts thereof exist for the period May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010, at the following rates:
In accordance with the
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies selected for individual examination in these reviews for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the country-specific all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification,
We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of these reviews.
Because we revoked the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan and the United Kingdom effective September 15, 2011, no cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties on future entries of subject merchandise will be required.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These final results of administrative reviews are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is amending the
Magd Zalok or James Martinelli, Enforcement and Compliance, Office IV, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4162 and (202) 482-2923, respectively.
On May 5, 2014, the Department disclosed to interested parties its calculations for the
The merchandise covered by the order includes MLWF, subject to certain exceptions.
The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.224(f) define a “ministerial error” as an error “in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” After analyzing the ministerial error comments and rebuttal comments, we determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made ministerial errors in our calculation for the
In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the
The amended weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
We intend
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the amended final results of this administrative review.
For Armstrong, Fine Furniture, and Minglin, the Department calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales and the total entered value of those sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate is not zero or
For all separate rate respondents, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries at an
On October 24, 2011, the Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy (“NME”) cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the rate for the NME-wide entity. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective on any entries made after the date of publication of these amended final results for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the amended final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters identified above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to their weighted-average dumping margin in these amended final results of review; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that received a separate rate in a previously completed segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity (
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
These amended final results are published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability and request for comment.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has prepared a draft supplemental environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of the potential effects of the operation of five Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (plans) specifying the propagation of five species of salmon and steelhead in the Elwha River of Washington state. The plans were prepared and submitted jointly by the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). All comments and other information received will become part of the public record and will be available for review pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA.
Comments and other submissions must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written responses to the draft supplemental environmental assessment should be sent to Allyson Purcell, National Marine Fisheries Services, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 1201 N.E. Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. Comments may also be submitted by email to:
Allyson Purcell at (503) 736-4736 or email:
Chinook salmon (
Steelhead (
Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the “taking” of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The term “take” is defined under the ESA to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. NMFS may issue permits to take listed species for any act otherwise prohibited by section 9 for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species, under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA. NMFS regulations governing permits for threatened and endangered species are promulgated at 50 CFR 222.307.
The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and the WDFW submitted plans to NMFS for five jointly operated hatchery programs in the Elwha River basin. The plans were submitted pursuant to limit 6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule for the listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) and listed Puget Sound steelhead distinct population segment (DPS). Two of the hatchery programs release ESA-listed Chinook salmon and steelhead, and three hatchery programs release non-ESA listed coho, fall chum, and pink salmon into the Elwha River watershed. All of the programs are currently operating, and all five hatchery programs raise fish native to the Elwha River basin. The current draft supplemental environmental assessment was prepared to more clearly describe the potential effects of an alternative involving production levels substantially reduced from those described in the plans.
NEPA requires Federal agencies to conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to determine if the actions may affect the human environment. Therefore, NMFS is seeking public input on the scope of the required NEPA analysis, including the range of reasonable alternatives and associated impacts of any alternatives.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of peer review meeting.
NMFS has requested the Center for Independent Experts (CIE) to conduct a peer review of the agency's stock assessment of Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Atka mackerel. The CIE is a group that provides independent peer reviews of NMFS science nationwide, including reviews of stock assessments for fish and marine mammals. The CIE review will examine whether the assessment incorporates the best available scientific information and provides a reasonable approach to understanding the population dynamics and stock status of Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Atka mackerel. The public is invited to attend and observe the presentations and discussions between the CIE panel and the NMFS scientists who collected and processed the data, and designed the underlying model.
The review will be held July 29 through July 31, 2014, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time.
The review will be held at the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Building 4, Seattle, WA, 98115, in conference room 2039.
Sandra Lowe, 206-526-4230, or Jim Ianelli, 206-526-6510.
The CIE panel will consist of three peer reviewers who will assess materials related to the topic, participate in a review workshop with the NMFS scientists who developed the model and the analytical approach, and produce a report. This review will be highly technical in nature and will cover mathematical details of the analytical
The final report is due to the NMFS contractor officer's representative (COR) on August 29, 2014, and will consist of individual reports from each panelist. The NMFS COR will distribute the final CIE reports to the Alaska Fisheries Science Center by September 5, 2014.
The review will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Jennifer Ferdinand, (206) 526-4076, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the Procurement List.
This action adds products and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 1/31/2014 (79 FR 5383); 4/21/2014 (79 FR 22104-22105); 4/25/2014 (79 FR 22951-22952); 5/2/2014 (79 FR 25115); and 5/16/2014 (79 FR 28490-28491), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Additions to the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add products and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following products and services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice.
The Commander of the Northwestern Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is soliciting applications to fill vacant stakeholder representative member positions on the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (MRRIC). Members are sought to fill vacancies on a committee to represent various categories of interests within the Missouri River basin. The MRRIC was formed to advise the Corps on a study of the Missouri River and its tributaries and to provide guidance to the Corps with respect to the Missouri River recovery and mitigation activities currently underway. The Corps established the MRRIC as required by the U.S. Congress through the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA), Section 5018.
The agency must receive completed applications and endorsement letters no later than July 25, 2014.
Mail completed applications and endorsement letters to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District (Attn: MRRIC), 1616 Capitol
Mary S. Roth, 402-995-2919.
The operation of the MRRIC is in the public interest and provides support to the Corps in performing its duties and responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531
A Charter for the MRRIC has been developed and should be reviewed prior to applying for a stakeholder representative membership position on the Committee. The Charter, operating procedures, and stakeholder application forms are available electronically at
1. The primary purpose of the MRRIC is to provide guidance to the Corps and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan currently in existence, including recommendations relating to changes to the implementation strategy from the use of adaptive management; coordination of the development of consistent policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, activities, and priorities for the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan. Information about the Missouri River Recovery Program is available at
2. Other duties of MRRIC include exchange of information regarding programs, projects, and activities of the agencies and entities represented on the Committee to promote the goals of the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; establishment of such working groups as the Committee determines to be necessary to assist in carrying out the duties of the Committee, including duties relating to public policy and scientific issues; facilitating the resolution of interagency and intergovernmental conflicts between entities represented on the Committee associated with the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; coordination of scientific and other research associated with the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; and annual preparation of a work plan and associated budget requests.
This Notice is for individuals interested in serving as a stakeholder member on the Committee. Members and alternates must be able to demonstrate that they meet the definition of “stakeholder” found in the Charter of the MRRIC. Applications are currently being accepted for representation in the stakeholder interest categories listed below:
a. Agriculture;
b. Conservation Districts;
c. Fish and Wildlife;
d. Flood Control;
e. Hydropower;
f. Irrigation;
g. Navigation;
h. Recreation;
i. Thermal Power;
j. Water Supply; and
k. At Large.
Terms of stakeholder representative members of the MRRIC are three years. There is no limit to the number of terms a member may serve. Incumbent Committee members seeking reappointment do not need to re-submit an application. However, they must submit a renewal letter and related materials as outlined in the “Streamlined Process for Existing Members” portion of the document
Members and alternates of the Committee will not receive any compensation from the federal government for carrying out the duties of the MRRIC. Travel expenses incurred by members of the Committee are not currently reimbursed by the federal government.
Applications for stakeholder membership may be obtained electronically at
1. The name of the applicant and the primary stakeholder interest category that person is qualified to represent;
2. A written statement describing the applicant's area of expertise and why the applicant believes he or she should be appointed to represent that area of expertise on the MRRIC;
3. A written statement describing how the applicant's participation as a Stakeholder Representative will fulfill the roles and responsibilities of MRRIC;
4. A written description of the applicant's past experience(s) working collaboratively with a group of individuals representing varied interests towards achieving a mutual goal, and the outcome of the effort(s);
5. A written description of the communication network that the applicant plans to use to inform his or her constituents and to gather their feedback, and
6. A written endorsement letter from an organization, local government body, or formal constituency, which demonstrates that the applicant represents an interest group(s) in the Missouri River basin.
To be considered, the application must be complete and received by the close of business on July 25, 2014, at the location indicated (see
• Ability to commit the time required.
• Commitment to make a good faith (as defined in the Charter) effort to seek balanced solutions that address multiple interests and concerns.
• Agreement to support and adhere to the approved MRRIC Charter and Operating Procedures.
• Demonstration of a formal designation or endorsement by an organization, local government, or constituency as its preferred representative.
• Demonstration of an established communication network to keep constituents informed and efficiently seek their input when needed.
• Agreement to participate in collaboration training as a condition of membership. All applicants will be notified in writing as to the final decision about their application.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 19, 2014.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Andrew Brake, 202-260-0998.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 19, 2014.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Todd Stephenson, 202-205-1645.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Notice.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.282M.
The purpose of the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (Replication and Expansion) competition (CFDA 84.282M) is to award grants to eligible applicants to enable them to replicate or expand high-quality charter schools with demonstrated records of success, including success in increasing student academic achievement. Eligible applicants may use their grant funds to expand the enrollment of one or more existing charter schools by substantially increasing the number of available seats per school or to open one or more new charter schools that are based on the charter school model for which the eligible applicant has presented evidence of success.
For the FY 2014 competition, we are using the Promise Zones priority, published in the
The Department has also revised the selection criterion on the quality of the project design to add a factor that assesses the extent to which each proposed project is supported by
In addition, in January 2014, the Department updated Section E of the CSP Nonregulatory Guidance to clarify the circumstances in which charter schools receiving CSP funds may use weighted lotteries, including to give educationally disadvantaged students slightly better chances for admission. Applicants proposing to use weighted lotteries should review the information in the
All charter schools receiving CSP funds, as outlined in section 5210(1)(G) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), must comply with various non-discrimination laws, including the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (specifies rights afforded to students with disabilities and their parents), and applicable State laws.
Finally, the FY 2014 appropriations bill (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Division H, Pub. L. 113-76.) included language authorizing the use of CSP grant funds to support preschool education in charter schools. Applicants proposing to use CSP funds to support preschool education in charter schools should review the Funding Restrictions section of this notice.
This priority is:
This priority is for projects that will provide for the replication or expansion of high-quality charter schools by applicants that currently operate or manage more than one
In order to receive points under these competitive preference priorities, the applicant must identify the priority or priorities that it wishes the Department to consider for purposes of awarding competitive preference priority points and provide documentation with respect to the identified competitive preference priority or priorities.
These priorities are:
To meet this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that at least 60 percent of all students in the charter schools it currently operates or manages are individuals from
The Secretary encourages an applicant responding to this priority to describe the extent to which the charter schools it currently operates or manages serve individuals from low-income families at rates that are at least comparable to the rates at which these individuals are served by public schools in the surrounding area.
For charter schools that serve students younger than 5 or older than 17 in accordance with their State's definition of “elementary education” or “secondary education,” at least 60 percent of all students in the schools who are between the ages of 5 and 17 must be individuals from low-income families to meet this priority.
To meet this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that its proposed replication or expansion of one or more
Applicants in States operating under ESEA Flexibility that have opted to waive the requirement in ESEA section 1116(b) for LEAs to identify for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, as appropriate, their Title I schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two or more consecutive years may partner with LEAs to serve students attending priority or focus schools (see the June 7, 2012, “ESEA Flexibility” guidance at
This priority is for applicants that demonstrate a record of (in the schools they currently operate or manage), as well as an intent to continue (in schools that they will be creating or substantially expanding under this grant), taking active measures to—
(a) Promote student diversity, including racial and ethnic diversity, or avoid racial isolation;
(b) Serve students with disabilities at a rate that is at least comparable to the rate at which these students are served
(c) Serve English learners at a rate that is at least comparable to the rate at which these students are served in public schools in the surrounding area.
In support of this priority, applicants must provide enrollment data as well as descriptions of existing policies and activities undertaken or planned to be undertaken.
An applicant addressing
For information on permissible ways to meet this priority, please refer to the joint guidance issued by the Department of Education and the Department of Justice entitled, “Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid Racial Isolation in Elementary and Secondary Schools” at
This priority is for projects that are designed to serve and coordinate with a federally designated Promise Zone.
Applicants should submit a letter from the lead entity of a designated Promise Zone attesting to the contribution that the proposed activities would make, and supporting the application. A list of designated Promise Zones and lead organizations can be found at
This priority is for applicants that qualify as novice applicants. “Novice applicant” means an applicant for a grant from the Department that (i) has never received a Replication and Expansion grant; (ii) has never been a member of a group application, submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, that received a Replication and Expansion grant; and (iii) has not had an active discretionary grant from the Federal government in the five years before the deadline date for applications for new awards under this Replication and Expansion grant competition.
For purposes of clause (iii) in the preceding paragraph, a grant is active until the end of the grant's project or funding period, including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's authority to obligate funds (34 CFR 75.225(b)).
The following definitions are from the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program published in the
(i) There is at least one study that is a—
(A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;
(B)
(C)
(ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger), favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice. (34 CFR 77.1)
(1) Increasing student academic achievement and attainment for all students, including, as applicable, educationally disadvantaged students served by the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant.
(2) Either (i) Demonstrated success in closing historic achievement gaps for the subgroups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA at the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant, or
(ii) No significant achievement gaps between any of the subgroups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA at the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant and significant gains in student academic achievement have been made with all populations of students served by the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant.
(3) Achieved results (including performance on statewide tests, annual student attendance and retention rates, high school graduation rates, college attendance rates, and college persistence rates where applicable and available) for low-income and other educationally disadvantaged students served by the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant that are above the average academic achievement results for such students in the State.
(4) No
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply only to institutions of higher education.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 99 apply only to an educational agency or institution.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2015 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 states that “funds available for part B of title V of the ESEA may be used for grants that support preschool education in charter schools.” An application submitted under this competition may propose to use CSP funds to support preschool education in a charter school, provided that the charter school meets the definition of “charter school” in section 5210(1) of the ESEA, including the requirement that the charter school provide a program of elementary or secondary education, or both. Under section 9101(18) of the ESEA, “elementary school” means a nonprofit institutional day or residential school, including a public elementary charter school, that provides elementary education, as determined under State law. In a number of States, preschool education is part of elementary education under State law. In such States, CSP funds may be used to support preschool education in charter schools (as defined in section 5210(1)) that provide elementary or secondary education beyond preschool, as well as in charter schools that provide only preschool education. In States in which preschool education is not part of elementary education under State law, CSP funds may be used to support preschool education so long as the preschool program is offered as part of a school that meets the definition of “charter school” in section 5210(1)—that is, the school provides elementary or secondary education, or both. Thus, in States in which preschool education is not part of elementary education under State law, CSP funds may not be used to support charter schools that provide only preschool education. In Summer 2014, the Department plans to release nonregulatory guidance that will provide additional information about how CSP funds may be used to support preschool education in charter schools. Please continue to check the CSP Web site for updates.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. The estimated range, average size, and number of awards are based on a single 12-month budget period. However, the Department may choose to fund more than 12 months of a project using FY 2014 funds.
1.
2.
3.
(a)
For this competition the maximum limit of grant funds that may be awarded per new school seat is $3,000, including a maximum limit per new school created of $800,000. The
Applicants must ensure that all costs included in the proposed budget are reasonable and necessary in light of the goals and objectives of the proposed project. Any costs determined by the Secretary to be unreasonable or unnecessary will be removed from the final approved budget.
(b)
A charter school that has received CSP funds for replication previously, or that has received funds for planning or initial implementation of a charter school (i.e., CFDA 84.282A or 84.282B), may not use funds under this grant for the same purpose. However, such charter schools may be eligible to receive funds under this competition to substantially expand the charter school beyond the existing grade levels or student count.
1.
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.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section.
2.a.
• 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, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• 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 does 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 one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section [Part III].
b.
Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the Replication and Expansion competition, an application may include business information that the applicant considers proprietary. The Department's regulations define “business information” in 34 CFR 5.11.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you feel is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
For further information about the pre-application meeting, contact LaShawndra Thornton, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W257, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone: (202) 453-5617 or by email:
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.
Pursuant to section 5204(f)(3) of the ESEA, grantees under this program must use the grant funds for—
(a) Post-award planning and design of the educational program, which may include: (i) Refinement of the desired educational results and of the methods for measuring progress toward achieving those results; and (ii) professional development of teachers and other staff
(b) Initial implementation of the charter school, which may include: (i) Informing the community about the school; (ii) acquiring necessary equipment and educational materials and supplies; (iii) acquiring or developing curriculum materials; and (iv) other initial operational costs that cannot be met from State or local sources.
A grantee may use up to 20 percent of grant funds for initial operational costs associated with the expansion or improvement of the grantee's oversight or management of its charter schools, provided that: (i) The specific charter schools being created or substantially expanded under the grant are the intended beneficiaries of such expansion or improvement, and (ii) such expansion or improvement is intended to improve the grantee's ability to manage or oversee the charter schools created or substantially expanded under the grant.
We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the
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 2-5 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.
a.
Applications for grants under the CSP Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools, CFDA number 84.282M, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.
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 CSP Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 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
• 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. Specifically, do not upload an interactive or fillable .PDF file. 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.
• 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; and
• 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 prevent 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: LaShawndra Thornton, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W257, Washington, DC 20202-5970. FAX: (202) 205-5630.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
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 Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.282M, LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
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.
c.
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 84.282M, 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.
These application requirements are from the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this competition published in the
(a) Describe the objectives of the project for replicating or substantially expanding
(b) Describe how the applicant currently operates or manages the charter schools for which it has presented evidence of success, and how the proposed new or substantially expanded charter schools will be operated or managed. Include a description of central office functions, governance, daily operations, financial management, human resources management, and instructional management. If applying as a group or consortium, describe the roles and responsibilities of each member of the group or consortium and how each member will contribute to this project.
(c) Describe how the applicant will ensure that each proposed new or substantially expanded charter school receives its commensurate share of Federal education funds that are allocated by formula each year, including during the first year of operation of the school and any year in which the school's enrollment substantially expands.
(d) Describe the educational program to be implemented in the proposed new or substantially expanded charter schools, including how the program will enable all students (including educationally disadvantaged students) to meet State student academic achievement standards, the grade levels or ages of students to be served, and the curriculum and instructional practices to be used.
An applicant proposing to create or substantially expand a single-sex charter school should include in its application a detailed description of how it is complying with applicable nondiscrimination laws, including the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution (as interpreted in
(e) Describe the administrative relationship between the charter school or schools to be replicated or substantially expanded by the applicant and the authorized public chartering agency.
(f) Describe how the applicant will provide for continued operation of the proposed new or substantially expanded charter school or schools once the Federal grant has expired.
(g) Describe how parents and other members of the community will be involved in the planning, program design, and implementation of the proposed new or substantially expanded charter school or schools.
(h) Include a request and justification for waivers of any Federal statutory or regulatory provisions that the applicant believes are necessary for the successful operation of the proposed new or substantially expanded charter schools.
(i) Describe how the grant funds will be used, including how these funds will be used in conjunction with other Federal programs administered by the Secretary, and with any matching funds.
(j) Describe how all students in the community, including students with disabilities, English learners, and other educationally disadvantaged students, will be informed about the proposed new or substantially expanded charter schools and given an equal opportunity to attend such schools.
The applicant should provide a detailed description of its recruitment and admissions policies and practices, including a description of the lottery it plans to employ at each charter school if more students apply for admission than can be accommodated. The applicant should also describe any current or planned use of a weighted lottery or exemptions of certain categories of students from the lottery and how the use of such weights or exemptions is consistent with State law and the CSP authorizing statute. For information on the CSP lottery requirement, including permissible exemptions from the lottery and the circumstances under which charter schools receiving CSP funds may use weighted lotteries, see Section E of the CSP Nonregulatory Guidance at
An application that proposes to use a weighted lottery should provide the following:
(1) Information concerning the circumstances in which a weighted lottery would be used, including the specific categories of students the weighted lottery would favor;
(2) Evidence that (a) the use of a weighted lottery is necessary to comply with Federal or State law; or (b) the State permits the use of a weighted lottery under the circumstances in which a weighted lottery is proposed to be used (e.g., in favor of educationally disadvantaged students). State permission to use a weighted lottery can be evidenced by the fact that weighted lotteries for such students are expressly permitted under the State charter school law, a State regulation, or a written State policy consistent with the State charter school law or regulation, or, in the absence of express authorization, confirmation from the State's Attorney General, in writing, that State law permits the use of weighted lotteries in favor of such students;
(3) Information concerning the mechanisms that exist (if any) for an oversight entity (e.g., the SEA or an authorized public chartering agency) to review, approve, or monitor specific lottery practices, including the establishment of weight amounts if applicable;
(4) Information concerning how the use of a weighted lottery for a permitted purpose is within the scope and objectives of the proposed project; and
(5) Information concerning the amount or range of lottery weights that
(k) Describe how the proposed new or substantially expanded charter schools that are considered to be LEAs under State law, or the LEAs in which the new or substantially expanded charter schools are located, will comply with sections 613(a)(5) and 613(e)(1)(B) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (for additional information on IDEA, please see
(l) Provide information on any significant compliance issues identified within the past three years for each school managed by the applicant, including compliance issues in the areas of student safety, financial management, and statutory or regulatory compliance.
(m) For each charter school currently operated or managed by the applicant, provide the following information: The year founded, the grades currently served, the number of students, the address, the percentage of students in each subgroup of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA, results on the State assessment for the past three years (if available) by subgroup, attendance rates, student attrition rates for the past three years, and (if the school operates a 12th grade) high school graduation rates and college attendance rates (maintaining standards to protect personally identifiable information).
The Secretary encourages applicants to also provide suspension and expulsion rates by each subgroup for the past three years (if available) for each charter school currently operated or managed by the applicant.
(n) Provide objective data showing applicant quality. In particular, the Secretary requires the applicant to provide the following data:
(1) Performance (school-wide and by subgroup) for the past three years (if available) on statewide tests of all charter schools operated or managed by the applicant as compared to all students in other schools in the State or States at the same grade level, and as compared with other schools serving similar demographics of students (maintaining standards to protect personally identifiable information);
(2) Annual student attendance and retention rates (school-wide and by subgroup) for the past three years (or over the life of the school, if the school has been open for fewer than three years), and comparisons with other similar schools (maintaining standards to protect personally identifiable information); and
(3) Where applicable and available, high school graduation rates, college attendance rates, and college persistence rates (school-wide and by subgroup) for the past three years (if available) of students attending schools operated or managed by the applicant, and the methodology used to calculate these rates (maintaining standards to protect personally identifiable information). When reporting data for schools in States that may have particularly demanding or low standards of proficiency, applicants are invited to discuss how their academic success might be considered against applicants from across the country.
(o) Provide such other information and assurances as the Secretary may require.
2.
In evaluating an application, the Secretary considers the following criteria:
(a)
In determining the quality of the applicant, the Secretary considers the following factors—
(1) The degree, including the consistency over the past three years, to which the applicant has demonstrated success in significantly increasing student academic achievement and attainment for all students, including, as applicable, educationally disadvantaged students served by the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant (20 points).
(2) Either—
(i) The degree, including the consistency over the past three years, to which the applicant has demonstrated success in closing historic achievement gaps for the subgroups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA at the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant, or
(ii) The degree, including the consistency over the past three years, to which there have not been significant achievement gaps between any of the subgroups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA at the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant and to which significant gains in student academic achievement have been made with all populations of students served by the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant (15 points).
(3) The degree, including the consistency over the past three years, to which the applicant has achieved results (including performance on statewide tests, annual student attendance and retention rates, high school graduation rates, college attendance rates, and college persistence rates where applicable and available) for low-income and other educationally disadvantaged students served by the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant that are significantly above the average academic achievement results for such students in the State (15 points).
(b)
The contribution the proposed project will make in assisting educationally disadvantaged students served by the applicant to meet or exceed State academic content standards and State student academic achievement standards, and to graduate college- and career-ready. When responding to this selection criterion, applicants must discuss the proposed locations of schools to be created or substantially expanded and the student populations to be served.
The Secretary encourages applicants to describe their prior success in improving educational achievement and outcomes for educationally disadvantaged students, including students with disabilities and English learners. In addition, the Secretary encourages applicants to address how they will ensure that all eligible students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education and how the proposed project will assist educationally disadvantaged students, including students with disabilities and English learners, in mastering State academic content standards and State student academic achievement standards.
(c)
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors—
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and attainable. Applicants proposing to open schools serving substantially different populations than those currently served by the model for which they have demonstrated evidence of success must address the attainability of outcomes given this difference (5 points).
(2) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by
(d)
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan and personnel to replicate and substantially expand
(1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks (4 points).
(2) The business plan for improving, sustaining, and ensuring the quality and performance of charter schools created or substantially expanded under these grants beyond the initial period of Federal funding in areas including, but not limited to, facilities, financial management, central office, student academic achievement, governance, oversight, and human resources of the charter schools (4 points).
(3) A multi-year financial and operating model for the organization, a demonstrated commitment of current and future partners, and evidence of broad support from stakeholders critical to the project's long-term success (4 points).
(4) The plan for closing charter schools supported, overseen, or managed by the applicant that do not meet high standards of quality (4 points).
(5) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director, chief executive officer or organization leader, and key project personnel, especially in managing projects of the size and scope of the proposed project (4 points).
(e)
The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data.
3.
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).
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.
(a) Program Performance Measures. The goal of the CSP is to support the creation and development of a large number of high-quality charter schools that are free from State or local rules that inhibit flexible operation, are held accountable for enabling students to reach challenging State performance standards, and are open to all students. The Secretary has two performance indicators to measure progress towards this goal: (1) The number of charter schools in operation around the Nation, and (2) the percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or above the proficient level on State assessments in mathematics and reading/language arts. Additionally, the Secretary has established the following measure to examine the efficiency of the CSP: Federal cost per student in implementing a successful school (defined as a school in operation for three or more consecutive years).
(b) Project-Specific Performance Measures. Applicants must propose project-specific performance measures and performance targets consistent with the objectives of the proposed project. Applications must provide the following information as directed under 34 CFR 75.110(b) and (c):
(1) Performance measures. How each proposed
(2) Baseline data. (i) Why each proposed
(3) Performance targets. Why each proposed
The Secretary encourages the applicant to consider measures and targets tied to their grant activities (for instance, if grant funds will support professional development for teachers and other staff, applicants should include measures related to the outcomes for the professional development), as well as to student academic achievement during the grant period. The measures should be sufficient to gauge the progress throughout the grant period, and show results by the end of the grant period.
For technical assistance in developing effective performance measures, applicants are encouraged to review information provided by the Department's Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs). The RELs seek to build the capacity of States and school districts to incorporate data and research into education decision-making. Each REL provides research support and technical assistance to its region but makes learning opportunities available to educators everywhere. For example, the REL Northeast and Islands has created the following resource on logic models:
(4) The applicant must also describe in the application: (i) The data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, and (ii) the applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.
If the applicant does not have experience with collection and reporting of performance data through other projects or research, the applicant should provide other evidence of capacity to successfully carry out data collection and reporting for their proposed project.
All grantees must submit an annual performance report with information that is responsive to these performance measures.
5.
LaShawndra Thornton, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 4W257, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone: (202) 453-5617 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Center for Best Practices to Support Single Parent Students Notice inviting applications for a new award for fiscal year (FY) 2014.
Applications Available: June 20, 2014.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 21, 2014.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 18, 2014.
This notice contains one Competitive Preference Priority. For 2014, this priority is a competitive preference priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we award any application that meets this competitive preference priority an additional three points. Applicants must clearly mark the Abstract and Information page in the application package if they intend to address this competitive preference priority. The competitive preference priority is:
Projects at four-year institutions of higher education that can demonstrate expertise in the development of programs to assist single parents who are students at institutions of higher education, as shown by the institution's development of a variety of targeted services to such students, including on-campus housing, child care, counseling, advising, internship opportunities, financial aid, and financial aid counseling and assistance.
The Department establishes this competitive priority to respond to congressional intent that the Center funded under this competition be located at an institution with demonstrated expertise in developing programs to assist single parent students. The Department believes that the
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities, definitions, and other requirements. Section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), however, allows the Secretary to exempt from rulemaking requirements, regulations governing the first grant competition under a new or substantially revised program authority. This is the first grant competition for the Center for Best Practices to Support Single Parent Students program under 20 U.S.C. 1138(c) and therefore qualifies for this exemption. In order to ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has decided to forego public comment on the priorities, definitions, and requirements under section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. These priorities, selection criteria, definitions and requirements will apply to the FY 2014 grant competition only.
20 U.S.C. 1138(c).\
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2015 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2. (a)
1.
To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address:
To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.116L.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section.
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 the application narrative to no more than 20 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.
For purposes of determining compliance with the page limit, each page on which there are words will be counted as one full page.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative,
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger; or, no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10 point font in charts, tables, figures, graphs, footnotes, and endnotes.
• 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 does not apply to Part I, the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424) and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for the SF 424 Form; the one-page Abstract; Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524); or Part IV, the Assurances and Certifications. The page limit also does not apply to a Table of Contents, if you include one. However, the page limit does apply to all of the project narrative section in Part III.
If you include any attachments or appendices not specifically requested, these items will be counted as part of the program narrative [Part III] for purposes of the page limit requirement.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit.
3.
Applications Available: June 20, 2014.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 21, 2014.
Applications for grants under this program 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
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 18, 2014.
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 2-5 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 the 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, in order to submit 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.
a.
Applications for grants under the Center for Best Practices to Support Single Parent Students, CFDA number 84.116L, 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 Center for Best Practices to Support Single Parent Students 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.
• 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 prevent 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: Kelly Harris, Center for Best Practices to Support Single Parent Students, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6161, Washington, DC 20006-8544.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
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 Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.116L), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
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.
c.
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 84.116L), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
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.
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.
These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project.
If funded, you will be required to collect and report data in your project's annual performance report (34 CFR 75.590).
Kelly Harris, Center for Best Practices to Support Single Parent Students, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6161, Washington, DC 20006-8544. Telephone: (202) 219-7083 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the 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 April 2014, it issued orders granting authority to import and export natural gas, to import and export liquefied natural gas and to vacate prior authority. These orders are summarized in the attached appendix and may be found on the FE Web site at
Department of Energy.
Notice of Stakeholder Participation.
The Department of Energy (DOE) invites public participation in DOE's efforts to develop a guidance document entitled: Energy Sector Framework Implementation Guidance.
Requests for participation in DOE's Guidance development efforts and additional information should be directed to
Since the release of the Cybersecurity Framework by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on February 12, 2014, DOE has engaged both private and public sector stakeholders for the development of the Energy Sector Framework Implementation Guidance (Guidance). The DOE is currently collaborating with private sector stakeholders through the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council (ESCC) and the Oil & Natural Gas Subsector Coordinating Council (ONG SCC) forums. The DOE is also coordinating with other Sector Specific Agency (SSA) representatives and interested government stakeholders for the development of the Guidance.
The DOE invites energy sector stakeholder participation in bi-weekly conference calls being held jointly by the ESCC and ONG SCC forums. These forums also provide periodic opportunities for participants to comment on the incremental updates to the Draft Framework Implementation Guidance document. The document is being designed to help energy sector stakeholders develop or align existing cybersecurity risk management programs with the Cybersecurity Framework. The document will also take into consideration energy sector organizations that may have business activities across multiple critical infrastructure sectors, e.g., Dams, Transportation, Chemicals, etc. requiring a harmonized implementation approach with these other sectors.
Section 8(b) of the Executive Order 13636, “Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity”
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a combined meeting of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee and Waste Management Committee of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico (known locally as the Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board [NNMCAB]). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, July 9, 2014 2 p.m.-4 p.m.
NNMCAB Office, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506.
Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file any motion to intervene, protest, comments, and/or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Take notice that on June 2, 2014, Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI), 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, filed in Docket No. CP14-496-000, an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate certain compression facilities located in Marshall County, West Virginia and Monroe County, Ohio known as the Clarington Project.
Specifically, DTI plans to install over 16,130 of horsepower (hp) at existing compressor stations (6, 130 hp at Burch Ridge Stateion in Marshal County, WV and 10,000 hp at Mullett Station in Monroe County, OH), two meter stations and 2,612 feet of new 20-inch diameter suction piping and 2,756 feet of new 16-inch diameter discharge piping in Monroe County, OH. The project is designed to provide natural gas incremental firm transportation services of 250,000 dekatherms per day on DTI's system. DTI has an initial incremental rate to recover the costs of the Project facilities. The estimated cost for DTI's construction of the project is $76,560,748, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Matthew R. Bley, Manager, Gas Transmission Certificates, Dominion Transmission, Inc., 701 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, phone: (804) 771-4399, fax: (804) 771-4804, or email:
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents,
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that on May 30, 2014 Southern Natural Gas Company, LLC (Southern), 569 Brookwood Village, Suite 749, Birmingham, Alabama 35209, filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to section 7(c) and 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission's regulations, requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing their Zone 3 Expansion Project. This project that creates an additional 235 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) of firm transportation capacity on the Southern is pipeline system. Southern also requested authorization for incremental rate treatment for the Zone 3 Expansion Project, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Glenn A. Sheffield, Director, Rates & Regulatory Affairs, Southern Natural Gas Company, LLC, 569 Brookwood Village, Suite 749, Birmingham, Alabama 35209, phone (205) 325-3813 or email
Specifically, Southern will be (1) constructing a 3.3 mile long, 36-inch outer-diameter pipeline loop in Marengo County, Alabama; (2) installing compressor unit 4,000 Horsepower (Hp) at an existing compressor station in Upson County, Georgia; (3) abandoning a compressor unit 4,700 International Standard Organization (ISO) Hp from operation at an existing compressor station in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana and relocating it to an existing compressor station in Liberty County, Georgia; (4) installing relocated compressor unit 4,700 ISO Hp and installing gas cooling at an existing compressor station in Liberty County, Georgia; (5) installing new gas cooling at an existing compressor station in Glynn County, Georgia; (6) constructing a new compressor station, one unit of 4,700 ISO Hp and a main line valve in Nassau County, Florida; (7) installing miscellaneous upgrades at an existing meter station in Wayne County, Georgia; (8) and installing up to three pipeline taps and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system interconnection along the existing Southern Cypress line in Nassau and/or Duval Counties, Florida.
Southern states that the Zone 3 Expansion Project will provide Southern's customers with access to additional supplies of domestically-produced natural gas entering Southern's system through its interconnections with Elba Express Company, LLC. Southern states that the project is supported by signed precedent agreements for firm transportation service with ten new and existing customers for all the capacity created by the Zone 3 Expansion Project. Southern requests that the Commission issue the requested authorizations on or before May 15, 2015, in order to allow Southern sufficient time to meet the June 1, 2016 in-service date set forth in the precedent agreements. Southern states that the Zone 3 Expansion Project will result in no subsidization from existing shippers, and is seeking incremental rate treatment for the project. The cost of the project is $93,468,931.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability 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 85.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 447897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for an original license for the proposed 5.25-megawatt (MW) Braddock Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project, which would be located on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Braddock Locks and Dam facility on the Monongahela River in the Borough of West Mifflin and the City of Duquesne, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Commission staff prepared a final Environmental Assessment (EA) which analyzes the potential environmental effects of construction and operation of the project and concludes that issuing a license for the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the final EA is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. The final EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
For further information contact Andy Bernick at (202) 502-8660.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Corpus Christi LNG Project (Project), proposed by Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC and Cheniere Corpus Christ Pipeline, LP (collectively Cheniere) in the above-referenced docket. Cheniere requests authorization to construct and operate the facilities necessary to import, export, store, vaporize, and liquefy natural gas and deliver the resulting product either into existing interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines in the Corpus Christi area, or export liquefied natural gas (LNG) elsewhere.
The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with the mitigation measures recommended in the EIS, would ensure that impacts in the Project area would be avoided or minimized and would not be significant. Construction and operation of the Project would result in mostly temporary and short-term environmental impacts; however, some long-term and permanent environmental impacts would occur.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. The DOE will adopt and use the EIS in issuing their permit. The U.S. Coast Guard, EPA, and DOT cooperated in the preparation of this EIS because of their special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal. Although the cooperating agencies provide input to the conclusions and recommendations presented in the draft EIS, the agencies will present their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective Records of Decision for the Project.
The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following Project facilities:
• Liquefaction facilities, including three liquefaction trains capable of producing 782 million British thermal units (MMBtu) per year of LNG;
• vaporization facilities, including two trains of ambient air vaporizers and send out pumps capable of vaporizing sufficient LNG volume for each to send out 200 MMBtu per day of natural gas;
• LNG storage facilities, including three LNG storage tanks each capable of storing 160,000 cubic meters of LNG;
• marine terminal with two LNG carrier berths;
• 23 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline;
• one 41,000 horsepower compressor station and one 12,260 horsepower compressor station; and
• ancillary facilities.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the draft EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the Project area; and parties to this proceeding. Everyone on our environmental mailing list will receive a CD version of the draft EIS. In addition, the draft EIS is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
If you would like a hard copy of the draft EIS, please contact the Public Reference Room.
Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is important that the Commission receive your comments before August 4, 2014.
For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket numbers (CP12-507-000 and CP12-508-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
(4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public comment meeting its staff will conduct in the Project area to receive comments on the draft EIS. We encourage interested groups and individuals to attend and present oral comments on the draft EIS. Transcripts of the meetings will be available for review in eLibrary under the Project docket numbers. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. and is scheduled as follows:
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Freeport LNG Phase II Modification Project and the Liquefaction Project (Projects) proposed by Freeport LNG Development, L.P., FLNG Liquefaction LLC, FLNG Liquefaction 2, LLC, and FLNG Liquefaction 3, LLC (collectively referred to as Freeport LNG) in the above-referenced dockets. Freeport LNG requests authorization to export up to 13.2 million tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) per year from its proposed Liquefaction Plant and associated facilities in Brazoria County, Texas and modify its previously approved Phase II Project facilities within the Town of Quintana.
The final EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Projects in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the Projects would have some adverse impacts; however, most of these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of Freeport LNG's proposed mitigation and the additional measures recommended by the FERC staff in the final EIS.
The United States Department of Energy (USDOE), United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the final EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. The USACE, USEPA, and USDOE can adopt and use the EIS to support their respective permit decisions after an independent review of the document. The USDOT and NOAA Fisheries cooperated in the preparation of this final EIS because of their special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal. Although the cooperating agencies provided input on the conclusions and recommendations presented in the final EIS, the agencies will present their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective Records of Decision or other determinations for the Projects.
The proposed Phase II Modification Project includes modification to the previously authorized, but not constructed, LNG vessel berthing dock, LNG transfer pipelines, LNG unloading arms; and the access road system. In addition, Freeport LNG would either eliminate or modify components of the previously authorized facility.
The Liquefaction Project consists of multiple components, including facilities at and adjacent to the existing Quintana Island terminal and facilities located beyond Quintana Island. The Liquefaction Plant, located at and adjacent to the existing Quintana Island terminal, would consist of three propane pre-cooled mixed refrigerant liquefaction trains, each capable of producing a nominal 4.4 million metric tons per annum of LNG for export, which equates to a total liquefaction capacity of approximately 1.8 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas.
To support the Liquefaction Plant, Freeport LNG proposes to construct a natural gas Pretreatment Plant located about 2.5 miles north of the existing Quintana Island terminal. The Pretreatment Plant would process the gas for liquefaction. In addition several interconnecting pipelines and utility lines including a five-mile-long, 12-inch-diameter boil-off gas feed pipeline from the Quintana Island terminal to the Pretreatment Plant (referred together as the Pipeline/Utility Line System). The Liquefaction Plant, the Pretreatment Plant, and the Pipeline/Utility Line System, together with the associated appurtenant structures, are collectively referred to as the Liquefaction Project.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. Paper copy versions of this EIS were mailed to those specifically requesting them; all others received a CD version. In addition, the EIS is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Revision to the FR Notice Published 6/13/2014; Correct Review Period from 7/14/2014 to 07/28/214.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Determination.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 312(f)(3), the State of New York has determined that the protection and enhancement of the quality of the New York State (NYS or the State) area of Lake Erie requires greater environmental protection, and has petitioned the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, for a determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for those waters, so that the State may completely prohibit the discharge from all vessels of any sewage, whether treated or not, into such waters.
NYS has proposed to establish a “Vessel Waste No Discharge Zone” for the NYS area of Lake Erie stretching from the Pennsylvania-New York State boundary to include the upper Niagara River to Niagara Falls. The proposed No Discharge Zone encompasses approximately 593 square miles and 84 linear shoreline miles, including the navigable portions of the Upper Niagara River and numerous other tributaries and harbors, embayments of the Lake including Barcelona Harbor, Dunkirk Harbor and Buffalo Outer Harbor, and other formally designated habitats and waterways of local, state, and national significance.
On December 6, 2012, the EPA completed a review of NYS's petition and issued a tentative affirmative determination in the
On September 27, 2013, EPA published notice of its tentative affirmative determination (“TAD”) that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available within the New York State waters of Lake Erie, and its approval of New York's proposal to ban the discharge of treated and untreated sewage from vessels into those waters under Clean Water Act (“CWA”) § 312(f)(3). (78 FR 59681) Public comments were solicited for 30 days and the comment period ended on October 28, 2013.
EPA received a total of eight comments via letter and email. Six of the commenters support EPA's tentative affirmative determination and two commenters oppose it. All of the relevant comments received have been considered, as discussed below, and EPA hereby issues a final affirmative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available within the New York State waters of Lake Erie.
Moses Chang, (212) 637-3867, email address:
The EPA Region 2 NDZ Web site is:
Notice is hereby given that the State of New York has petitioned the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, (EPA) pursuant to section 312(f)(3) of Public Law 92-500 as amended by Public Law 95-217 and Public Law 100-4, that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the NYS area of Lake Erie.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) developed its petition in collaboration with the New York State Department of State (DOS) and the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) in order to establish a vessel waste No Discharge Zone (NDZ) on the open waters, tributaries, harbors and embayments of the New York State area of Lake Erie, and has submitted a Certification of the Need for Greater Protection and Enhancement of Lake Erie waters. Below is a summary of the basis for New York's certification.
The Great Lakes are the largest group of freshwater lakes on Earth, containing 95% of the fresh surface water in the United States and acting as the largest single reservoir on Earth. The glacial history and the influence of the Lakes themselves create unique conditions that support a wealth of biological diversity, including over 200 globally rare plants and animals and more than 40 species that are found nowhere else in the world.
Lake Erie is the smallest and shallowest of the Great Lakes, with depths that range from an approximate average of 24 feet in the western basin, to 82 feet in the deeper eastern basin. Because of its shallowness, it warms quickly in the spring and summer and cools quickly in the fall. As a result, Lake Erie is the most biologically productive of the Great Lakes.
The Lake Erie watershed is also home to approximately one-third of the total human population of the Great Lakes basin—11.6 million people (10 million in the U.S. and 1.6 million in Canada), including 17 metropolitan areas with more than 50,000 residents. The majority, 11 million people, receive their drinking water from the Lake. Of all the Great Lakes, Lake Erie is exposed to the greatest stress from urbanization, industrialization and agriculture. Because the Lake Erie basin supports the largest population, it also surpasses all the other Great Lakes in the amount of effluent discharged from sewage treatment plants.
There are 18 designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats in the two counties that comprise New York's Lake Erie shoreline including: Cattaraugus Creek, Dunkirk Harbor, Buckhorn Island Wetlands and Grand Island Tributaries. These habitats are essential to the survival of a large portion of lake fish or wildlife population and support populations of species which are of special concern and which have significant commercial, recreational, and educational value.
The New York State shoreline and waters of Lake Erie also host a variety of swimming, boating and recreational activities. These recreational activities act as a source of revenue to the regional economy by bringing people to the shoreline, where they patronize local businesses.
Virtually all of Lake Erie is classified by New York State as Class A waters. This classification means that the best uses of these waters are for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes, recreation and fishing, and that the waters shall be suitable for fish, shellfish, and wildlife propagation and survival. Also, when the water in the Lake is used as a source of drinking water, it must comply with the New York State Department of Health's (DOH) drinking water safety standards. There are currently six New York municipal and community water supplies, including Buffalo and Erie County, that draw water from Lake Erie to serve approximately 275,000 people.
In summary, as one of the nation's premier water bodies, Lake Erie supports several important uses, including drinking water supplies, valuable habitats, commercial shipping, recreational boating and other recreational activities, and serves as an economic engine for the region. The protection and enhancement of the open waters, tributaries, harbors and embayments of the New York State area of Lake Erie require greater protection than is afforded by applicable federal standards. An NDZ designation covering the NYS waters of the Lake represents one component of a comprehensive approach to water quality management, which also includes initiatives to control point and non-point source pollution, including pollution associated with municipal discharges, combined sewer overflows, and storm water runoff.
Adequate pumpout facilities for recreational vessels are defined, under the Clean Vessel Act, as one pumpout station for every 300-600 boats.
The State provided sufficient information about fifteen pumpout facilities that are publicly available for use by recreational and small commercial vessels in the New York State area of Lake Erie, and which either discharge to a holding tank, to a municipal wastewater treatment plant or to an on-site septic system. All fifteen were created through funding provided by the Clean Vessel Act (CVA) Grant Program, and are thus required to be open to the public. Nine additional marinas are located along Lake Erie in New York State, including five at which CVA funding could support the development of future pumpout facilities for recreational and small commercial vessels. However, only the fifteen CVA-funded facilities were considered in determining the adequacy and availability of pumpout facilities for those vessels. Those facilities are summarized in Table 1, below. Using those fifteen facilities, and the most conservative estimate of small vessel usage of the NYS area of the Lake, the ratio of pumpout facilities to recreational vessels is 15:2,204, or 1:147. This ratio falls well within the range recommended in the Clean Vessel Act guidance, and therefore demonstrates that adequate pumpout facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage for recreational and small commercial vessels are reasonably available for the New York State area of Lake Erie.
Lake Erie is also used by large commercial vessels. The commercial vessel population was estimated using data from the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse, which records ballast water discharge reports for ships arriving, among other places, at the commercial ports in Buffalo and Lackawanna. In 2010, ballast manifests showed 62 vessels arriving at the Port of Buffalo and one arriving at the Gateway Metroport, in Lackawanna. The majority (58) of these vessels were bulkers, with two passenger ship arrivals and one more listed as “other.” The single arrival in Lackawanna was also a bulker. Two commenters representing commercial vessel operators submitted comments stating that more than 62 large commercial vessels use the New York State area of Lake Erie. One commenter estimated that the number was closer to 80, while the other commenter estimated that the number was “over a hundred.”
Although there is no fixed commercial vessel pumpout facility at either the Port of Buffalo or the Port of Lackawanna, information submitted in the petition, and by companies that provide mobile pumpout services, demonstrates that at least four companies are available and qualified to provide pumpout services to large commercial vessels at either port. In addition to commenting on the number of commercial vessels using the NYS area of Lake Erie, the two commenters submitted criteria they believe are necessary for determining whether a pumpout truck is able to service their vessels. Those criteria were taken into consideration, and were partially incorporated into the list of final criteria the EPA used to determine the reasonable availability of those services. In addition, one commenter confirmed that, while large commercial vessels can hold multiple thousands of gallons of wastewater, it is more likely that when these vessels discharge sewage, their holding tanks contain less than 4,000 gallons of wastewater. Based on all of this information, the EPA had determined that four mobile pumpout companies, with approximately ten pumpout trucks (listed in Table 2, below), are able to provide pumpout services to large commercial vessels at the ports of Buffalo and Lackawanna. Assuming, conservatively, that 100 large commercial vessels use the NYS area of Lake Erie and given that at least four companies with as many as ten pumpout trucks are able to provide pumpout services to these vessels at both New York ports, the ratio of pumpout facilities to commercial vessels is at least 4:100, or 1:25. While the Clean Vessel Act guidance applies, by its terms, only to recreational vessels, the ratio it recommends is instructive for purposes of determining the reasonable availability of pumpout services for large commercial vessels as well. In light of the relatively low ratio of pumpout companies to large commercial vessels (and the even lower ratio of pumpout
Based on the information above, the EPA hereby makes a final affirmative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are available for the waters of the New York State area of Lake Erie.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s). Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information burden
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before August 19, 2014. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Submit your PRA comments to Benish Shah, Federal Communications Commission, via the Internet at
Benish Shah, Office of Managing Director, (202) 418-7866.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3502-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 21, 2014. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Submit your PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), via fax at 202-395-5167, or via the Internet at
Leslie F. Smith, Office of Managing Director (OMD), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), at 202-418-0217, or via the Internet at:
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 17, 2014, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities.
In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, seconded by Director Jeremiah O. Norton (Appointive), concurred in by Paul M. Nash (Deputy Comptroller of the Currency) acting in the place and stead of Director Thomas J. Curry (Comptroller of the Currency), Director Richard Cordray (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), and Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10)).
The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC.
Federal Election Commission.
Tuesday June 24, 2014 At 10 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC
This Meeting Will Be Closed To The Public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than July 7, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 17, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Richard Walker, Community Affairs Officer) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (William Lang, Senior Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1521:
1.
C. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of Public Availability of FY 2013 Service Contract Inventories.
In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of its FY 2013 Service Contract Inventory. This inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 that were made in FY 2013. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the agency. The inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010 and December 19, 2011 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at
Questions regarding the service contract inventory should be directed to Lori Sakalos, Director in the HHS/Office of the Secretary, Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy and Accountability, Office of Acquisition Policy at 202-690-6361 or
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number (OCN). To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
2.
3.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
OCSE is proposing minor updates to the OCSE-157 report instructions to update submission procedures. Respondents will no longer have the option to submit hardcopy reports. The reports can only be submitted electronically by using the Online Data Collections (OLDC) system.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by July 21, 2014.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
The MUMS Act created three new sections to the FD&C Act (sections 571, 572, and 573), and this final rule implements section 572 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ccc-1), which provides for an index of legally marketed unapproved new animal drugs for minor species. Participation in any part of the MUMS program is optional so the associated paperwork only applies to those who choose to participate. The final rule specifies, among other things, the criteria and procedures for requesting eligibility for indexing and for requesting addition to the index as well as the annual reporting requirements for index holders.
Under subpart C of part 516, § 516.119 provides requirements for naming a permanent-resident U.S. agent by foreign drug companies, and § 516.121 provides for informational meetings with FDA. Section 516.123 provides requirements for requesting informal conferences regarding Agency administrative actions and § 516.125 provides for investigational use of new animal drugs intended for indexing. Provisions for requesting a determination of eligibility for indexing can be found under § 516.129 and provisions for subsequent requests for addition to the index can be found under § 516.145. A description of the written report required in § 516.145 can be found under § 516.143. Under § 516.141 are provisions for drug companies to nominate a qualified expert panel as well as the panel's recordkeeping requirements. This section also calls for the submission of a written conflict of interest statement to FDA by each proposed panel member. Index holders are able to modify their index listing under § 516.161 or change drug ownership under § 516.163. Requirements for records and reports are under § 516.165.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by July 21, 2014.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under section 501 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 351), FDA has the statutory authority to issue current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) regulations for drugs, including medicated feeds. Medicated feeds are administered to animals for the prevention, cure, mitigation, or treatment of disease, or growth promotion and feed efficiency. Statutory requirements for cGMPs have been codified under part 225 (21 CFR part 225). Medicated feeds that are not manufactured in accordance with these regulations are considered adulterated under section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act. Under part 225, a manufacturer is required to establish, maintain, and retain records for a medicated feed, including records to document procedures required during the manufacturing process to assure that proper quality control is maintained. Such records would, for example, contain information concerning receipt and inventory of drug components, batch production, laboratory assay results (i.e. batch and stability testing), labels, and product distribution.
This information is needed so that FDA can monitor drug usage and possible misformulation of medicated feeds to investigate violative drug residues in products from treated animals and to investigate product defects when a drug is recalled. In addition, FDA will use the cGMP criteria in part 225 to determine whether or not the systems and procedures used by manufacturers of medicated feeds are adequate to assure that their feeds meet the requirements of the FD&C Act as to safety and that they
A license is required when the manufacturer of a medicated feed involves the use of a drug or drugs that FDA has determined requires more control because of the need for a withdrawal period before slaughter or because of carcinogenic concerns. Conversely, a license is not required and the recordkeeping requirements are less demanding for those medicated feeds for which FDA has determined that the drugs used in their manufacture need less control. Respondents to this collection of information are commercial feed mills and mixer-feeders.
In the
FDA estimates the burden for this collection of information as follows:
The estimate of time required for record preparation and maintenance is based on Agency communications with industry. Other information needed to finally calculate the total burden hours (i.e., number of recordkeepers, number of medicated feeds being manufactured, etc.) is derived from Agency records and experience.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by July 21, 2014.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under section 501 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), FDA has the statutory authority to issue current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) regulations for drugs, including Type A medicated articles. A Type A medicated article is a feed product containing a concentrated drug diluted with a feed carrier substance. A Type A medicated article is intended solely for use in the manufacture of another Type A medicated article or a Type B or Type C medicated feed. Medicated feeds are administered to animals for the prevention, cure, mitigation, or treatment of disease or for growth promotion and feed efficiency.
Statutory requirements for cGMPs for Type A medicated articles have been codified in part 226 (21 CFR part 226). Type A medicated articles which are not manufactured in accordance with these regulations are considered adulterated under section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B). Under part 226, a manufacturer is required to establish, maintain, and retain records for Type A medicated articles, including records to document procedures required under the manufacturing process to assure that proper quality control is maintained. Such records would, for example, contain information concerning receipt and inventory of drug components, batch production, laboratory assay results (i.e., batch and stability testing) and product distribution.
This information is needed so that FDA can monitor drug usage and possible misformulation of Type A medicated articles. The information could also prove useful to FDA in investigating product defects when a drug is recalled. In addition, FDA will use the cGMP criteria in part 226 to determine whether or not the systems used by manufacturers of Type A medicated articles are adequate to assure that their medicated articles meet the requirements of the FD&C Act as to safety and also meet the article's claimed identity, strength, quality, and purity, as required by section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act. The respondents for Type A medicated articles are pharmaceutical firms that manufacture both human and veterinary drugs, those firms that produce only veterinary drugs, and commercial feed mills.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The estimate of time required for record preparation and maintenance is based on previous Agency communications with industry. Other information needed to calculate the total burden hours (i.e., manufacturing sites, number of Type A medicated articles being manufactured, etc.) are derived from Agency records and experience.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Determining the Need for and Content of Environmental Assessments for Gene Therapies, Vectored Vaccines, and Related Recombinant Viral or Microbial Products” dated June 2014. The draft guidance document provides investigational new drug application (IND) sponsors and applicants for a biologics license application (BLA), or a supplement to a BLA, with recommendations on considerations when assessing whether to submit an Environmental Assessment (EA) for gene therapies, vectored vaccines, and related recombinant viral or microbial products (GTVVs). The guidance also contains recommendations as to what information should be included in an EA and what sponsors and applicants can expect once an EA is filed. The guidance, when finalized, will supplement the guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: Environmental Assessment of Human Drug and Biologics Applications,” dated July 1998 (1998 Guidance) and will also supersede those recommendations for GTVVs in section IV.B.1 Assessing Toxicity to Environmental Organisms” of the guidance.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by September 18, 2014.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-7800. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Tami Belouin, 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 announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Determining the Need for and Content of Environmental Assessments for Gene Therapies, Vectored Vaccines, and Related Recombinant Viral or Microbial Products” dated June 2014. The draft guidance document provides IND sponsors and applicants for a BLA, or a supplement to a BLA, with recommendations on considerations when assessing whether to submit an EA for GTVVs. The guidance also contains recommendations as to what information should be included in an EA and what sponsors and applicants can expect once an EA is filed. Products addressed in the guidance include all GTVVs, but not live-attenuated viral or microbial vaccines created by traditional methods such as serial passaging or recombinant protein-based vaccines. The guidance, when finalized, will supplement the 1998 Guidance, and will also supersede those recommendations for GTVVs in section IV.B.1 entitled “Assessing Toxicity to Environmental Organisms” of the guidance.
The draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent FDA's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirement of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 25 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0322; the collections of
The draft guidance is being distributed for comment purposes only and is not intended for implementation at this time. Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) received applications for temporary permits from Bumble Bee Foods, LLC; Chicken of the Sea International; and StarKist Seafood Company (the applicants). We are announcing that we have issued temporary permits to the applicants to market test products (designated as “canned tuna” products) that deviate from the U.S. standard of identity for canned tuna. The purpose of the temporary permits is to market test the product throughout the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The permits will allow the applicants to measure consumer acceptance of the products and assess the commercial feasibility of the products.
These permits are effective for 15 months, beginning on the date each applicant introduces or causes the introduction of the test products into interstate commerce, but not later than September 18, 2014.
Loretta A. Carey, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2371.
We have issued a temporary permit to each of the following applicants: Bumble Bee Foods, LLC; Chicken of the Sea International; and StarKist Seafood Company. We are issuing these temporary permits in accordance with 21 CFR 130.17, which addresses temporary permits for interstate shipment of experimental packs of food varying from the requirements of standards of identity issued under section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341).
These permits cover limited interstate marketing tests of products identified as “canned tuna.” These test products deviate from the U.S. standard of identity for canned tuna (21 CFR 161.190) in that they are labeled without the statement “Below Standard in Fill” as required in § 161.190(c)(4) and 21 CFR 130.14(b). The test products meet all the requirements of the standard with the exception of this deviation.
The purpose of these temporary permits is to market test the product throughout the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. These permits will allow the applicants to measure customer acceptance of the products and assess commercial feasibility of the products.
Table 1 lists the amount of product for distribution and the manufacturers of the products for each of the applicants. The retail cans for the products are of various sizes.
Bumble Bee Foods, LLC; Chicken of the Sea International; and StarKist Seafood Company will distribute the test products throughout the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The information panels on the labels of the test products must bear nutrition labeling in accordance with 21 CFR 101.9. Each of the ingredients used in the food must be declared on the labels of the test products as required by the applicable sections of part 101. These permits are effective for 15 months, beginning on the date each applicant introduces or causes the introduction of the test products into interstate commerce, but not later than September 18, 2014.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of 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 meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of an amendment of meeting status of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) National Advisory Council to be held on June 23, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. via closed teleconference.
Public Notice was published in the
For additional information, contact the Council's Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Ms. Deborah DeMasse-Snell (see contact information below).
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of an amendment of meeting status of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) National Advisory Council will meet July 23, 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. via teleconference.
Public Notice was published in the
For additional information, contact the Council's Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Ms. Deborah DeMasse-Snell, (see contact information below).
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of an amendment of meeting status of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) National Advisory Council will meet August 6, 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. via closed teleconference.
Public Notice was published in the
For additional information, contact the Council's Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Ms. Deborah DeMasse-Snell, (see contact information below).
Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Privacy Act System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to update and reissue a current Department of Homeland Security system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency—002 Quality Assurance Recording System of Records.” This system of records allows the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency to collect and maintain records on the customer service performance of its employees, contractors, and vendors who interact with individuals who apply for the Agency's individual assistance and public assistance programs.
As a result of a biennial review of this system, the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency is updating this system of records notice to include updates to the (1) system location, (2) category of individuals, (3) category of records, (4) routine uses, (5) legal authorities, (6) purpose, (7) retrievability, (8) retention and disposal, and (9) record source categories. Additionally, this notice includes non-substantive changes to simplify the formatting and text of the previously published notice. This updated system will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's inventory of record systems.
Submit comments on or before July 21, 2014. This updated system will be effective July 21, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2014-0031 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions, please contact: Eric M. Leckey, (202) 212-5100, Privacy Officer, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20478. For privacy questions, please contact: Karen L. Neuman, (202) 343-1717, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Drive SW., Building 410, STOP-0655, Washington, DC 20528.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to update and reissue a current DHS system of records titled, “DHS/FEMA-002 Quality Assurance Recording System of Records.”
DHS/FEMA published this system of records notice because FEMA collects, uses, maintains, and retrieves personally identifiable information (PII) from its employees and contractors for internal employee performance evaluations, training, process improvement, and quality assurance purposes to improve customer service to individual assistance and public assistance applicants. FEMA collects information from individuals (including PII) as necessary, or uses information previously collected from them to provide customer service to these applicants.
FEMA collects, uses, and maintains the records within this system under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301; 5 CFR 430.102; the Federal Sector Labor Management Relations Act, 5 U.S.C. 4302, and 5 U.S.C. 7106(a); Fraud, Abuse, and Waste Controls, 6 U.S.C. 795; 29 U.S.C. 204(b); Exec. Order No. 1357; FEMA Directive 3100.1; and FEMA Directive 3700.
FEMA is updating this system of records notice because it provides greater transparency by encompassing the additional FEMA National Processing Service Center (NPSC) customer service performance records, including those employees/contractors who assess the customer service satisfaction of public assistance applicants.
(1) FEMA is updating the system location to include the Virginia NPSC in Winchester, Virginia, and the Maryland NPSC in Hyattsville, Maryland as possible locations for records within this system of records. FEMA is also updating the system location to include the Quality Assurance Recording System (QARS) IT system, which maintains these records; (2) FEMA is updating category of individuals to include FEMA employees and contractors that perform customer satisfaction assessments involving applicants of FEMA's individual assistance and public assistance programs; (3) FEMA is revising the category of records to include voice recordings within this system of records. Those records may also include a third-party vendor that is providing language translation services between the individual assistance applicant and
The purpose of this system of records is to enable FEMA's Quality Control Department, Customer Satisfaction Analysis Section, Contract Oversight Management Section, and NPSC Supervisory staff to better monitor, evaluate, and assess its employees and/or contractors so that FEMA can improve customer service to those seeking disaster assistance. The purpose is consistent with FEMA's mission to improve its capability to respond to all hazards and support the citizens of our Nation.
This updated system will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's inventory of record systems.
Consistent with DHS's information-sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/FEMA-002 Quality Assurance Recording System of Records may be shared with other DHS components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS/FEMA may share information with appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which federal government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals when systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors.
Below is the description of the DHS/FEMA-002 Quality Assurance Recording System of Records.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-002.
DHS/FEMA-002 Quality Assurance Recording System (QARS).
Unclassified.
Records are maintained primarily at the FEMA Texas National Processing Service Center (NPSC), Denton, TX 76208; however, records may also be maintained at the Virginia NPSC, Winchester, VA, and the Maryland NPSC, Hyattsville, MD, within the QARS IT system.
This system collects information from FEMA employees and contractors at FEMA's National Processing Service Centers (NPSCs) who are making or receiving telephone calls to or from disaster assistance applicants; FEMA employees and contractors engaged in the case review of disaster assistance applications not related to a telephone call to or from a disaster assistance applicant; and FEMA employees and contractors performing customer service satisfaction assessments involving applicants of FEMA individual assistance or public assistance programs.
• Voice recordings of telephone calls between FEMA employees and/or contractors and applicants for FEMA's individual assistance and public assistance programs. Telephone calls may include a third-party vendor that is providing language translation services on behalf of FEMA;
• A “quality result” generated in QARS for each call or case processing activity that is evaluated by a FEMA supervisor or quality control specialist assessing the level of customer service provided by the FEMA employee/contractor to the FEMA individual assistance or public assistance applicant;
• System-generated Contact ID;
• Name of FEMA employee who conducted the assessment;
• Identification number of FEMA employee who conducted the assessment;
• FEMA employee/contractor name; and
• FEMA employee/contractor user identification number.
Tracking of FEMA employee/contractor activity in the National Emergency Management Information System—Individual Assistance (formerly National Emergency Management Information System (NEMIS)-IA) and Customer Satisfaction Analysis System (CSAS) related to call recordings, case review processing not related to a phone call, and/or customer satisfaction assessments may include the following individual assistance applicant information:
• Survey ID;
• Applicant's name;
• Applicant email address;
• Home address;
• Social Security number;
• Applicant phone number(s);
• Current mailing address; and
• Personal financial information including applicant's bank name, bank account information, insurance information, and individual or household income.
Tracking of FEMA employee/contractor activity in CSAS related to call recordings for customer satisfaction assessments may include the following public assistance applicant information:
• Survey ID;
• Applicant/Point of Contact name and title;
• Applicant email address;
• Organization Name;
• Applicant's organization phone number(s); and
• Organization's business and/or mailing address.
5 U.S.C. 301; 5 CFR 430.102; 5 U.S.C. 4302 and 5 U.S.C. 7106(a); 6 U.S.C. 795; 29 U.S.C. 204(b); Executive Order No. 13571; FEMA Directive 3100.1; FEMA Directive 3700.1; and FEMA Directive 3700.2.
The purpose of this system is to collect, maintain, use, and retrieve performance records of the FEMA employees, contractors, and vendors who interact with applicants of the Agency's individual assistance and public assistance programs for internal employee and/or contractor performance evaluations, training, and quality assurance purposes to improve FEMA's customer service to and satisfaction of those individuals applying for FEMA's individual and public assistance programs.
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 DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys, or other federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, 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. DHS or any component thereof;
2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The U.S. 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 (NARA) 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. DHS suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;
2. DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of identity theft or fraud, harm to economic or property interests, harm to an individual, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by DHS or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
3. The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS' 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, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, 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 DHS 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, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
H. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS, or when disclosure is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent the Chief Privacy Officer determines that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
None.
DHS/FEMA stores records in this system electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, and digital media.
FEMA retrieves records in QARS by the FEMA employee and/or contractor's name and user identification number, or system-generated Contact ID number. This system does not retrieve information by individual or public assistance applicant information.
DHS/FEMA safeguards records in this system according to applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. FEMA has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
The retention period for information maintained in QARS depends on the use of the data. Records within QARS that are used in an evaluation of a FEMA employee or contractor are retained for six years, pursuant to FEMA Records Schedule, Series 15-1 “National Processing Service Centers Evaluated Call Recordings,” NARA
Manager (940) 891-8500, Enterprise Performance Information Management Section, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Texas National Processing Service Center, Denton, TX 76208.
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 to the Chief Privacy Officer and Headquarters or FEMA Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer, whose contact information can be found at
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR Part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be 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. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer,
• Explain why you believe the Department would have information on you;
• Identify which component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;
• Specify when you believe the records would have been created; and
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records; and
If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records.
Without the above information, the component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
See “Notification procedure” above.
See “Notification procedure” above.
FEMA obtains records from FEMA employees and contractors who assist disaster survivors in the disaster assistance application and casework process, FEMA employees, and/or contractors initiating customer satisfaction assessments of FEMA disaster assistance applicants, and from supervisors or quality control specialists. This system of records contains PII of individual assistance applicants, which is part of the DHS/FEMA-008 Disaster Recovery Assistance Files System of Records, April 30, 2013, 78 FR 25282, as well as PII of public assistance applicants, which is part of the DHS/FEMA-009 Hazard Mitigation, Disaster Public Assistance, and Disaster Loan Programs System of Records.
None.
Coast Guard, DHS
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) and its subcommittees will meet on August 19, 20, and 21, 2014, in Arlington, VA, to discuss the safe and secure marine transportation of hazardous materials. The meetings will be open to the public.
Subcommittees will meet on Tuesday, August 19, 2014, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on Wednesday, August 20, 2014, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. The full committee will meet on Thursday, August 21, 2014, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Please note that the meetings may close early if the Committee has completed its business.
Please submit written materials and comments to the docket using any one of the methods listed in the
The meetings will be held at the U.S. Coast Marine Safety Center, Suite 400, 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 20598. Attendees will be required to pre-register no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 11, 2014, to be admitted to the meeting. To pre-register contact Lieutenant Cristina Nelson (202-372-1419) or
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the individual listed in the
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. In order to be considered at the meetings, comments must be submitted in writing no later than August 11, 2014. Comments may be submitted by
•
•
•
•
Mr. Patrick Keffler, Alternate Designated Federal Official (ADFO) of the CTAC, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1424, fax 202-372-8380. If you have any questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826 or 1-800-647-5527.
Notice of this meeting is given under the
CTAC is an advisory Committee authorized under section 871 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 451, and is chartered under the provisions of the FACA. The committee acts solely in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Deputy Commandant for Operations on matters relating to safe and secure marine transportation of hazardous materials activities insofar as they relate to matters within the United States Coast Guard's (USCG) jurisdiction. The committee advises, consults with, and makes recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the Secretary.
Subcommittee Meetings on August 19 and 20, 2014.
The subcommittees on biofuels, liquefied gases, outreach, Ship to Ship Transfer of Hazardous Material Outside of the Baseline, and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) will meet to continue to address the task statements listed in paragraph (3) of the agenda for the August 21 meeting and the tasks given at the last CTAC meeting. The task statements from the last CTAC meeting are located at Homeport at the following address:
The agenda for each subcommittee will include the following:
1. Review task statements, which are listed in paragraph (3) of the agenda for the August 21 meeting.
2. Work on tasks assigned in task statements mentioned above.
3. Public comment period.
4. Discuss and prepare proposed recommendations for the CTAC meeting on August 21 on tasks assigned in detailed task statements mentioned above.
The agenda for the CTAC meeting on August 21 is as follows:
1. Introductions and opening remarks.
2. Public comment period.
3. Committee will meet to review, discuss, and formulate recommendations on the following items of interest:
a. Harmonization of Response and Carriage Requirements for Biofuels and Biofuel Blends.
b. Recommendations on Safety Standards for the Design of Vessels Carrying Natural Gas or Using Natural Gas as Fuel.
c. Recommendations for Safety Standards for Ship to Ship Transfer of Hazardous Material Outside of the Baseline.
d. Recommendations for Guidance on the Implementation of Revisions to MARPOL Annex II and the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (commonly known as the IBC Code).
e. Requirements for Third-Party Surveyors of MARPOL Annex II Prewash Operations.
f. Improving Implementation of and Education about MARPOL Discharge Requirements Under MARPOL Annex II and V.
4. USCG presentations on the following items of interest:
a. Update on International Maritime Organization activities as they relate to the marine transportation of hazardous materials.
b. Update on U.S. regulations as they relate to the marine transportation of hazardous materials.
c. Update on Bulk Chemical Data Guide (Blue Book).
d. Update on vessel to vessel transfer of hazardous materials in bulk.
5. Set next meeting date and location.
6. Set Subcommittee Meeting schedule.
A public comment period will be held during each Subcommittee and the full committee meeting concerning matters being discussed. Public comments will be limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Please contact Mr. Patrick Keffler, listed in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Kevin Stevens, Deputy Director, HMID, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Theresa Ritta, Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B-17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301)-443-2265 (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: AGRICULTURE: Ms. Debra Kerr, Department of Agriculture, Reporters Building, 300 7th Street SW., Room 300, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 720-8873; AIR FORCE: Ms.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibit activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before July 21, 2014. We must receive requests for marine mammal permit public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the
Brenda Tapia, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203; fax (703) 358-2280; or email
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone); (703) 358-2280 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to import one female captive born gorilla (
The applicant requests renewal of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species, to enhance the species' propagation or survival. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
Species:
The applicant requests a permit to export 5 male and 5 female captive-bred jackass penguins (
The applicant requests a permit to import a sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The applicant requests renewal of the permit to import teeth from polar bears (
Concurrent with publishing this notice in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to reopen the request for public nominations for certain Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Advisory Committees that have member terms expiring this year. These Advisory Committees provide advice and recommendations to the BLM on land use planning and management of the National System of Public Lands within their respective geographic areas. The
All nominations must be received no later than July 21, 2014.
See
Lauren Luckey, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, WO-610, Public Affairs Division, 20 M Street SE., #6281, Washington, DC 20003, 202-912-7422.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) directs the Secretary of the Interior to involve the public in planning and issues related to management of lands administered by the BLM. Section 309 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1739) directs the Secretary to establish 10- to 15-member citizen-based advisory councils that are consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). As required by FACA, Resource Advisory Council (RAC) membership must be balanced and representative of the various interests concerned with the management of the public lands. The rules governing RACs are found at 43 CFR subpart 1784 and include the following three membership categories:
Individuals may nominate themselves or others. Nominees must be residents of the state in which the RAC has jurisdiction. The BLM will evaluate nominees based on their education, training, experience, and knowledge of the geographical area of the RAC. Nominees should demonstrate a commitment to collaborative resource decision-making. The Obama Administration prohibits individuals who are currently federally registered lobbyists from being appointed or re-appointed to FACA and non-FACA boards, committees, or councils.
This request for public nominations also applies to the Steens Mountain Advisory Council (SMAC) in Oregon established pursuant to Section 131 of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000. The SMAC advises the Secretary of the Interior in managing the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area.
The following must accompany all nominations for the RACs and SMAC:
Simultaneous with this notice, BLM state offices will issue press releases providing additional information for submitting nominations, with specifics about the number and categories of member positions available for each RAC in the state and the Steens Mountain Advisory Council in Oregon. If you have already submitted your RAC nomination materials for 2014 you will not need to resubmit. Nominations for the following RACs should be sent to the appropriate BLM offices as noted below:
Jonathan Moor, Lewistown Field Office, BLM, 920 Northeast Main Street, Lewistown, Montana 59457, (406) 538-1943.
David Abrams, Butte Field Office, BLM, 106 North Parkmont, Butte, Montana 59701, (406) 533-7617.
Eastern Washington RAC; Southeast Oregon RAC; Steens Mountain Advisory Council, Stephen Baker, Oregon State Office, BLM, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, (503) 808-6306.
43 CFR 1784.4-1.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Notice.
This notice provides BOEM's determination that there is no competitive interest in the area requested by the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center at Oregon State University (NNMREC-OSU) to acquire an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) marine hydrokinetic (MHK) research lease as described in the
Effective June 20, 2014.
Ms. Jean Thurston, Renewable Energy Specialist, BOEM, Pacific OCS Region, Office of Strategic Resources, 770 Paseo Camarillo, Second Floor, Camarillo, California 93010, Phone: (805) 389-7585.
This Determination of No Competitive Interest (DNCI) is published pursuant to subsection 8(p)(3) of the OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(3)), and the implementing regulations at 30 CFR Part 585. Subsection 8(p)(3) of the OCS Lands Act requires that OCS renewable energy leases, easements, or rights-of-way (ROW) be issued “on a competitive basis unless the Secretary [of the Interior] determines after public notice of a proposed lease, easement, or ROW that there is no competitive interest.” The Secretary delegated the authority to make such determinations to BOEM.
This DNCI provides notice to the public that BOEM has determined there is no competitive interest in the
In the RFCI, BOEM also solicited public input from interested stakeholders regarding the proposed lease area, the potential environmental consequences of MHK energy development in the area, and multiple uses of the area. In response to the RFCI, BOEM received public comment submissions from six entities. BOEM will use the comments to inform subsequent decisions. After publication of this DNCI, BOEM may proceed with the noncompetitive leasing process for a research lease pursuant to 30 CFR 585.238.
A map of the area proposed for a research lease can be found at the following Web site:
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
BOEM is giving notice of its intent to prepare a Supplemental EIS for OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, Alaska. This Supplemental EIS will provide new analysis in response to a remand by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The NOI is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR 1508.22) implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
Frances Mann, Chief, Environmental Analysis Section II, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Alaska OCS Region, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500, Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5820, telephone (907) 334-5277.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Consistent with the regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
A Supplemental EIS is deemed appropriate to supplement the NEPA documents cited above for the proposed lease sales in order to consider new circumstances and information arising from, among other things, the
The CPA 241 and 247/EPA 226 Supplemental EIS analysis will focus on any new information on the potential environmental effects of oil and natural gas leasing, exploration, development, and production in the CPA and EPA identified through the Area Identification procedure as the proposed lease sale areas. In addition to the no action alternative (i.e., canceling a proposed lease sale), other alternatives may be considered for the proposed CPA and EPA lease sales, such as deferring certain areas from the proposed lease sale areas.
On August 27, 2012, the Secretary of the Interior approved as final the
This
In order to ensure a greater level of transparency during the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) stages and tiered NEPA processes of the Five-Year Program, BOEM established an alternative and mitigation tracking table, which is designed to track the receipt and treatment of alternative and mitigation suggestions. Section 4.3.2 of the Five-Year Program EIS presented a list of deferral and alternative requests that were received during the development of the Five-Year Program EIS, but they were determined to be more appropriately considered at subsequent OCSLA and NEPA stages. These deferral and alternative requests were previously addressed in the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale, EPA 225/226 EIS, and other supplemental EIS documents for these planning areas and were deemed inappropriate for further analysis at the time. In this and future NEPA analyses, BOEM will continue to evaluate whether these or other deferral or alternative requests warrant additional consideration as appropriate. A key principle at each stage in the NEPA process is to identify how the recommendations for deferral and mitigation requests are being addressed and whether new information or circumstances favor new or different analytical approaches in response to these requests.
Pursuant to the regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, BOEM will hold public scoping meetings in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida on the CPA 241 and 247/EPA 226 Supplemental EIS. The purpose of these meetings is to solicit comments on the scope of the CPA 241 and 247/EPA 226 Supplemental EIS. BOEM's scoping meetings will be held at the following places and times:
BOEM, as the lead agency, will not provide financial assistance to cooperating agencies. Even if an organization is not a cooperating agency, opportunities will exist to provide information and comments to BOEM during the normal public input stages of the NEPA/EIS process. For further information about cooperating agencies, please contact Mr. Gary D. Goeke at 504-736-3233.
Written scoping comments may be submitted in one of the following ways:
1. In an envelope labeled “Scoping Comments for the CPA 241 and 247/EPA 226 Supplemental EIS” and mailed (or hand delivered) to Mr. Gary D. Goeke, Chief, Environmental Assessment Section, Office of Environment (GM 623E), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394;
2. Through the regulations.gov web portal: Navigate to
3. BOEM's email address:
For information on the CPA 241 and 247/EPA 226 Supplemental EIS, the submission of comments, or BOEM's policies associated with this notice, please contact Mr. Gary D. Goeke, Chief, Environmental Assessment Section, Office of Environment (GM 623E), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394, telephone 504-736-3233.
This NOI is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) implementing the provisions of NEPA.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on June 3, 2013 (78 FR 33103) and determined on September 6, 2013 that it would conduct full reviews (78 FR 60316, October 1, 2013). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on June 16, 2014. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4472 (June 2014), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Institution of investigation and scheduling of hearing.
Following receipt on May 15, 2014, of a request from the Committee on Ways and Means (Committee) of the House of Representatives under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)), the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) instituted investigation No. 332-549,
All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the United States International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Project leader John Giamalva (202-205-3329 or
1. An overview of the rice industry in the United States and other major global producing and exporting countries (such as China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Uruguay, and Brazil), including production of rice, processing volumes, processing capacity, carry-over inventory, and consumption;
2. Information on recent trade trends and developments in the global market for rice, including U.S. and major foreign supplier imports and exports;
3. A comparison of the competitive strengths and weaknesses of rice production and exports in the United States and other major exporting countries, including such factors as producer revenue and costs of production, industry structure, input prices and availability, processing technology, product innovation, exchange rates, pricing, and market regimes, as well as government policies and programs that directly or indirectly
4. A qualitative and, to the extent possible, quantitative assessment of the impact of government policies and programs of major producing and exporting countries on their rice production, exports, consumption, and domestic prices, as well as on rice prices globally; and
5. an overview of the impact on the U.S. rice industry of exports from the highlighted countries of rice to the United States and to traditional export markets of the United States such as, but not limited to, Mexico, Haiti, and West Africa.
Any submissions that contain confidential business information must also conform with the requirements of section 201.6 of the
In the request letter, the Committee stated that it intends to make the Commission's report available to the public in its entirety, and asked that the Commission not include any confidential business information in the report it sends to the Committee. Any confidential business information received by the Commission in this investigation and used in preparing this report will not be published in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the initial determination (“ID”) of the presiding Administrative Law Judge, granting the joint motion of complainant Apple Inc., f/k/a Apple Computer, Inc., of Cupertino, California (“Apple”) and respondent Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola”) of Libertyville, Illinois to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.
Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on November 30, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Apple. 75 FR 74081-82 (Nov. 30, 2010). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain mobile devices and related software by reason of infringement of
On January 13, 2012, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding no violation of section 337. On March 16, 2012, the Commission issued a notice, determining to review the ID in part, and on review, to affirm the ALJ's determination of no violation and to terminate the investigation. 77 FR 16860-62 (Mar. 22, 2012). On April 13, 2012, Apple timely appealed the Commission's final determination of no violation of section 337 as to the '607 and '828 patents to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On August 7, 2013, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and vacated-in-part the Commission's decision and remanded for further proceedings.
On May 6, 2014, the Commission issued a Notice and Order remanding the investigation for an ALJ to make certain findings concerning infringement, validity, and domestic industry with respect to the '607 and '828 patents. 79
On May 22, 2014, Apple and Motorola filed a joint motion to terminate the remand investigation based on a settlement agreement reached between Apple and Motorola's parent company, Google Inc. On May 27, 2014, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response not opposing the termination.
On May 28, 2014, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting the joint motion for termination pursuant to section 210.21(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. No petitions for review were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge has issued a Final Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments from the public on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, specifically that if the Commission were to find a violation of section 337, 19 U.S.C. 1337, that the Commission issue limited exclusion orders directed to the Nokia and ZTE respondents and cease and desist orders directed to the Nokia respondents. The ALJ recommended that implementation of any limited exclusion order be delayed by six months. The ALJ rejected the respondents' arguments that the public interest stands in the way of relief for the complainants. This notice is soliciting public interest comments from the public only. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4).
Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in these investigations. Accordingly, members of the public are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond issued in this investigation on June 13, 2014.
Comments should address whether issuance of a limited exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third
(v) explain how the limited exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on Monday, July 7, 2014.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
June 27, 2014 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) concerning suspension of pension benefits to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before July 21, 2014.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-EBSA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Suspension of Pension Benefits Pursuant to Regulations 29 CFR 2530.203-3 information collection requirements. Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) section 203(a)(3)(B), 29 U.S.C. 1103(a)(3)(B), and its implementing regulations govern the circumstances under which a pension plan may suspend pension benefit payments to a retiree who returns to work or of a participant who continues to work beyond normal retirement age. In order for a plan to suspend benefits, it must notify the affected retiree or participant during the first calendar month or payroll period in which the plan withholds payment that benefits are suspended. The notice must include the specific reasons for such suspension, a general description of the plan provisions authorizing the suspension, a copy of the relevant plan provisions, and a statement indicating where the applicable regulations may be found, i.e., 29 CFR 2530.203-3. The suspension notification must also inform the retiree or participant of the plan's procedure for affording a review of the suspension of benefits. ERISA section 203 authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2014. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC invites public comment about our intention to request the OMB's approval for renewal of an existing information collection that is summarized below. We are required to publish this notice in the
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Submit, by August 19, 2014, comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly-available documents, including the draft supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC's Web site:
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. Comments submitted should reference Docket No. NRC-2014-0104. You may submit your comments by any of the following methods: Electronic comments go to:
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Kristen Benney (T-5 F50), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6355, or by email to:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC invites public comment about our intention to request the OMB's approval for a new information collection that is summarized below. We are required to publish this notice in the
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Submit, by August 19, 2014, comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly-available documents, including the draft supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC's Web site:
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. Comments submitted should reference Docket No. NRC-2014-0145. You may submit your comments by any of the following methods: Electronic comments go to:
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Kristen Benney (T-5 F50), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6355, or by email to:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70 (b) “Public Notice of Receipt of an Application,” please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received the following request for an export license. Copies of the request are available electronically through ADAMS and can be accessed through the Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed within thirty (30) days after publication of this notice in the
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed with the NRC electronically in accordance with NRC's E-Filing rule promulgated in August 2007, 72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007. Information about filing electronically is available on the NRC's public Web site at
In addition to a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene, written comments, in accordance with 10 CFR 110.81, should be submitted within thirty (30) days after publication of this notice in the
The information concerning this export license amendment application follows.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a revision to Regulatory Guide (RG) 8.22, “Bioassay at Uranium Mills.” This guide describes a bioassay program acceptable to the NRC staff for uranium mills and applicable portions of uranium conversion facilities where the possibility of exposure to yellowcake dust exists.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0057 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
•
•
•
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Harriet Karagiannis, telephone: 301-251-7477, email:
The NRC is issuing a revision to an existing guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information such as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The NRC issued Revision 2 of RG 8.22 for public comment with a temporary identification as draft regulatory guide (DG), DG-8051. This guide describes a method that the NRC staff considers acceptable for complying with the Commission's regulations concerning bioassay at uranium mills. It provides methods that the NRC staff considers acceptable to implement Part 20 of Title 10 of the
Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-8051, was published in the
The NRC revised this guide for a better alignment with: (1) 10 CFR Part 20; (2) the internal dose assessment recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), Publication 30, “Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers”; and (3) the recommended bioassay interpretation method by ICRP Publication 54, “Individual Monitoring for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers: Design and Interpretation.”
Regulatory Guide, 8.22, Revision 2 also provides: (1) Recommendations based on the nephrotoxic analyses in NUREG-0874, “Internal Dosimetry Model for Applications to Bioassay at Uranium Mills,” (Appendix A of the guide); and (2) the consensus standard of the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.30-2011, “Performance Criteria for Radiobioassay,” that is applicable for uranium mills.
This RG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
Issuance of this final RG does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 76.76 and is not otherwise inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” This final RG provides guidance to applicants for, and holders of, uranium milling licenses and some uranium conversion facility licenses on methods for meeting certain NRC regulatory requirements for bioassays in 10 CFR Part 20.
Licensees may voluntarily use RG 8.22, Revision 2 to demonstrate compliance with the underlying NRC's regulations.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of intent to request extension of OMB approval.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) intends to request that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) extend approval, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, of a collection of information on the disclosure of termination information under its regulations for distress terminations, 29 CFR part 4041, Subpart C, and for PBGC-initiated terminations under 29 CFR part 4042 (OMB control number 1212-0065; expires September 30, 2014). This notice informs the public of PBGC's intent and solicits public comment on the collection of information.
Comments should be submitted by August 19, 2014.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
PBGC will make all comments available on its Web site at
Copies of the collection of information may be obtained without charge by writing to the Disclosure Division of the Office of the General Counsel of PBGC at the above address, visiting the Disclosure Division, faxing a request to 202-326-4042, or calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4040.) The regulations and instructions relating to this collection of information are available on PBGC's Web site at
Jo Amato Burns, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4024. (For TTY and TDD, call 800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.)
Sections 4041 and 4042 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C 1301-1461, govern the termination of single-employer defined benefit pension plans that are subject to Title IV of ERISA. A plan administrator may initiate a distress termination pursuant to section 4041(c), and PBGC may itself initiate proceedings to terminate a pension plan under section 4042 if PBGC determines that certain conditions are present. Section 506 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 amended sections 4041 and 4042 of ERISA. These amendments require that, upon a request by an affected party, a plan administrator must disclose information it has submitted to PBGC in connection with a distress termination filing, and that a plan administrator or plan sponsor must disclose information it has submitted to PBGC in connection with a PBGC-initiated termination. The provisions also require PBGC to disclose the administrative record relating to a PBGC-initiated termination upon request by an affected party.
A description of the current disclosure provisions for distress terminations can be found on PBGC's Web site at
PBGC estimates that three participants or other affected parties will annually make requests for termination information. PBGC estimates that the total annual burden for the collection of information will be about 45 hours and $900 (15 hours and $300 per request).
PBGC is soliciting public comments to—
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing requesting the addition of Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 3 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Request, Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2014-27 and CP2014-53 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 3 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than June 24, 2014. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints James F. Callow to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2014-27 and CP2014-53 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James F. Callow is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than June 24, 2014.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Service
Notice of modification to existing systems of records.
The United States Postal Service® is proposing to modify a Customer Privacy Act System of Records to enable the Postal Service to collect additional information from customers who register with
These revisions will become effective without further notice on July 21, 2014 unless comments received on or before that date result in a contrary determination.
Comments may be mailed or delivered to the Privacy and Records Office, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 9517, Washington, DC 20260-1101. Copies of all written comments will be available at this address for public inspection and photocopying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Matthew J. Connolly, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy and Records Office, 202-268-8582 or
This notice is in accordance with the Privacy Act requirement that agencies publish their amended systems of records in the
To date, approximately 20 million customers (individuals and corporate entities) conduct transactions with the Postal Service online through
Additional information is collected from the customer automatically when the customer registers through
The Customer Registration application is a target for various types of fraudulent activity, such as the creation of fraudulent accounts, identity theft, and unauthorized account access. Consistent with the official USPS Privacy Policy, available at
The Postal Service is also proposing to maintain information from business
The Postal Service is also amending categories of records in the system, business specific information, to reflect additional data elements that will be maintained in the Customer Registration application.
System of Records 810.100,
The organization routinely will analyze data collected from the customer, including the additional information specified above, thereby enhancing current fraud protection controls. When specific fraud is identified against a customer account, the organization will communicate the incident to the registrant and offer recommended steps to enhance the customer's protection.
Collecting information from businesses regarding promotional marketing campaigns would further a purpose already listed within this system of records—“To permit customer feedback in order to improve usps.com or USPS products and services.” The Postal Service values its business customers, and welcomes any information they wish to share in connection with USPS promotional marketing campaigns. By associating this information with a business customer's account, the Postal Service will be better able to learn about and serve that customer. Additionally, such information may aid the Postal Service in making improvements to usps.com as well as to Postal Service products and services.
This SOR is also being amended to include information on whether a USPS business customer is a mail owner, a mail service provider, a PC Postage user, and/or a PC postage vendor. Such information, which is currently collected and stored in other postal information systems (Program Registration and Postalone!) will now be maintained in the Customer Registration database and will enable businesses to participate in Package Service programs, to receive mail tracking data, to receive incentives on certain mail volumes, or to avail themselves of other postal features available to business customers.
The Postal Service is modifying one system of records listed below. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11), interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, or arguments on this proposal. A report of the proposed modifications has been sent to Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget for their evaluations. The Postal Service does not expect this amended system of records to have any adverse effect on individual privacy rights. The affected systems are as follows:
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Postal Service proposes changes in the existing system of records as follows:
3.
7.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014 from 10:00 a.m.—11:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time). Confirm the date on
Will be announced on
This meeting will be open to the public.
The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will meet for the disposition of official business. At the meeting, the Board will be voting on the issuance of its report on the surveillance program operated pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Additional information on the Board's review of this program, such as the prior public workshop and hearings, is available at
The meeting is open to the public. Pre-registration is not required. Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance should contact Sharon Bradford Franklin, Executive Director, 202-331-1986, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Sharon Bradford Franklin, Executive Director, 202-331-1986.
Notice for Public Comment.
The National Science and Technology Council's Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on the Materials Genome Initiative requests public comments on the draft 2014 Materials Genome Initiative Strategic Plan (
Responses must be received by July 21, 2014 to be considered.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Meredith Drosback, (202) 456-4444,
In June 2011, President Obama launched the Materials Genome Initiative (MGI) to help scientists and innovators discover, develop, and deploy new materials twice as fast as today. What began with a modest investment by four Federal agencies only three years ago has now expanded to include participation by a wide range of public and private stakeholders, including universities, companies, professional scientific societies, and Federal agencies.
At the Federal level, MGI is managed within the framework of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), the Cabinet-level council that coordinates science and technology across the Federal government. The Subcommittee on the Materials Genome Initiative (SMGI), under the NSTC Committee on Technology, coordinates Federal efforts in support of the goals of MGI and identifies policies that will accelerate deployment of advanced materials. The SMGI includes representatives from each agency participating in MGI.
The SMGI developed this strategic plan to outline the near-term steps the Federal government will take to achieve the vision put forth by MGI. It defines the high-level goals and priorities for the Initiative by describing each of four strategic goals and the objectives and near-term milestones needed to meet these goals. This strategic plan also describes scientific and technical challenges identified by experts from the materials science and engineering communities that impede progress in nine materials classes and that MGI can help address. This input came through two Grand Challenge Summits held in 2013 for stakeholders from academia and industry (details available online at
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Section II of the Pricing Schedule which pertains to Multiply Listed Options fees.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend Section II of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule entitled “Multiply Listed Options” to: (i) Amend Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot Options
The Exchange proposes to increase the electronic Professional,
The Exchange also proposes to increase the electronic Specialist
The Exchange currently assesses Professionals an electronic Complex Order fee of $0.30 per contract in Penny Pilot Options.
With respect to Non-Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange currently assesses Professionals an electronic Complex Order fee of $0.30 per contract in Non-Penny Pilot Options.
The Exchange believes that offering these market participants the opportunity to lower Complex Order fees will encourage the transaction of these types of orders on Phlx.
Today the Exchange offers Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms the opportunity to reduce electronic Options Transaction Charges in Non-Penny Pilot Options from $0.70 to $0.60 per contract if the member or member organization under Common Ownership with another member or member organization qualifies, in a given month, for Customer Rebate Tiers 2, 3, 4, or 5 in Section B of the Pricing Schedule.
The Exchange also proposes to offer Specialists and Market Makers an opportunity to lower the electronic Non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge from the proposed $0.25 per contract to $0.23 per contract.
The Exchange believes that these incentives will encourage Specialists and Market Makers to transact a greater number of orders on the Exchange.
Today, Specialists and Market Makers are subject to a “Monthly Market Maker Cap” of $550,000 for: (i) Electronic and floor Option Transaction Charges; (ii) QCC Transaction Fees (as defined in Exchange Rule 1080(o) and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in 1064(e)); and (iii) fees related to an order or quote that is contra to a PIXL Order or specifically responding to a PIXL auction. The trading activity of separate Specialist and Market Maker member organizations is aggregated in calculating the Monthly Market Maker Cap if there is Common Ownership between the member organizations.
All dividend, merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy executions (as defined in Section II) are excluded from the Monthly Market Maker Cap. In addition, Specialists or Market Makers that (i) are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order; and (ii) have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap are assessed a $0.17 per contract fee.
The Exchange proposes to continue to assess Specialists or Market Makers that (i) are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order; and (ii) have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap a $0.17
The Exchange previously filed an immediately effective rule change
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange's proposal to increase the electronic Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot Options to $0.48 per contract is reasonable because the Exchange's fees will remain competitive with fees at other options markets.
The Exchange's proposal to increase the electronic Professional, Broker-Dealer and Firm Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot Options to $0.48 per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will assess Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms the same electronic Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange does not assess Customers an electronic Options Transaction Charge in Penny Pilot Options because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. Specialists and Market Makers are assessed lower electronic Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot Options as compared to Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms because they have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to increase the electronic Specialist and Market Maker Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options from $0.23 to $0.25 per contract is reasonable because the Exchange will continue to offer Specialists and Market Makers other incentives such as the Monthly Market Maker Cap, which incentive is not offered to other market participants. The Exchange believes that despite the fee increase, the fee remains competitive with other market participant fees. Also, the Exchange is offering Specialists and Market Makers a means to reduce the Options Transaction Charge to $0.23 per contract in Non-Penny Pilot Options as described in more detail below.
The Exchange's proposal to increase the electronic Specialist and Market Maker Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options from $0.23 to $0.25 per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will continue to assess Specialists and Market Makers the lowest electronic Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options as compared to the $0.70 per contract electronic Options Transaction Charge assessed to Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms.
The Exchange's proposal to continue to offer Professionals, and now Broker-Dealers and Firms, the opportunity to reduce electronic Complex Orders to a fee of $0.30 per contract in Penny Pilot Options is reasonable because the Exchange is increasing fees for these market participants with this proposal. Professionals will have the opportunity to lower the proposed $0.48 per contract electronic Options Transaction Charge in Penny Pilot Options to $0.30 per contract with respect to Complex Orders. This will represent a lower fee as compared to the proposed electronic
The Exchange's proposal to offer Broker-Dealers and Firms the same opportunity as a Professional to reduce electronic Complex Orders to a fee of $0.30 per contract in Penny Pilot Options is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will assess Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms the same electronic Options Transaction Charge in Penny Pilot Options of $0.30 per contract. The Exchange does not assess Customers an electronic Options Transaction Charge in Penny Pilot Options because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. Specialists and Market Makers are assessed lower electronic Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot Options as compared to Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms because they have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to continue to offer Professionals, and now Broker-Dealers and Firms, the opportunity to reduce electronic Complex Orders from $0.70 to $0.30 per contract in Non-Penny Pilot Options is reasonable because the Exchange desires to provide these market participants the opportunity to lower Complex Order fees in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options alike. This opportunity to lower electronic Complex Order fees, which is currently offered only to Professionals, will be extended to Broker-Dealers and Firms in Non-Penny Pilot Options. Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms are assessed the highest electronic Options Transactions Charges in Non-Penny Pilot Options of $0.70 per contract, as compared to other market participants. The Exchange believes that offering these market participants the opportunity to lower Non-Penny Pilot electronic Complex Order fees will encourage the transaction of these types of orders on Phlx.
The Exchange's proposal to offer Broker-Dealers and Firms the same opportunity as Professionals to reduce electronic Complex Orders to a fee of $0.30 per contract in Non-Penny Pilot Options is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will assess Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms the same electronic Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options of $0.30 per contract. The Exchange does not assess Customers an electronic Options Transaction Charge in Non-Penny Pilot Options because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. Specialists and Market Makers are assessed lower electronic Options Transaction Charges in Non-Penny Pilot Options as compared to Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms because they have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to offer Specialists and Market Makers an opportunity to lower electronic Options Transaction Charges in Non-Penny Pilot Options from $0.25 to $0.23 per contract, provided certain criteria are met, is reasonable because the Exchange desires to offer all market participants
The Exchange's proposal to offer Specialists and Market Makers the opportunity to lower electronic Options Transaction Charges in Non-Penny Pilot Options from $0.25 to $0.23 per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will offer all market participants, excluding Customers,
The Exchange's proposal to not assess a fee to Specialists or Market Makers that (i) are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order; and (ii) have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap in AAPL, BAC, FB, IWM and QQQ is reasonable because the Exchange desires to incentivize Specialists and Market Makers to transact more options in these symbols and bring additional liquidity to the Exchange. All market participants will benefit from the increased Customer liquidity brought to the Exchange. The Exchange today differentiates pricing by option symbols.
The Exchange's proposal to not assess a fee to Specialists or Market Makers that (i) are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order; and (ii) have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap in AAPL, BAC, FB, IWM and QQQ is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Specialists and Market Makers have burdensome quoting obligations
The Exchange's proposal to remove rule text related to the QCC Bonus is reasonable because removing the outdated rule text will add clarity to the Pricing Schedule. The Exchange's proposal to remove rule text related to the QCC Bonus is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the QCC Bonus is no longer in effect and therefore not available to any market participant.
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. The Exchange's proposal to increase electronic Options Transaction Charges for Professionals, Broker-Dealers and Firms in Penny Pilot Options conforms pricing for these market participants. Customers continue not be assessed Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges and Specialists and Market Makers continue to be assessed the lowest electronic Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot Options due to the obligations they bear in the market.
With respect to Non-Penny Pilot Options, the increase to Specialists and Market Makers for electronic orders is offset by the ability to reduce those fees by qualifying for certain Customer Rebates in Section B of the Pricing Schedule and also the ability to cap certain fees. The Exchange is offering all market participants that are assessed Non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges the opportunity to reduce those fees by qualifying for certain Customer Rebates in Section B of the Pricing Schedule.
Professionals, as is the case today, as well as Broker-Dealers and Firms alike will be offered the opportunity to reduce electronic Complex Order fees in both Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options as these market participants are assessed the highest Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges.
Specialists and Market Makers will be offered the opportunity to pay no fees, after they have satisfied the obligations related to the Monthly Market Maker Cap, in the following symbols: AAPL, BAC, FB, IWM and QQQ. Specialists and Market Makers have burdensome quoting obligations
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of twelve options exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate. Accordingly, the fees that are described in the above proposal are influenced by these robust market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fees charged d [sic] by other venues and therefore must continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The ISE proposes to amend its rules to require that market makers quoting certain in-the-money options series maintain quotes that are no wider than the spread between the NBBO in the underlying security. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 803(b)(4)(i) to require that market makers quoting certain in-the-money options series maintain quotes that are no wider than the spread between the national best bid and offer (“NBBO”) in the underlying security. The Exchange believes that requiring that market makers post tighter quotes in these option series will improve market quality to the benefit of investors that trade on the ISE.
In the course of maintaining fair and orderly markets in appointed options classes, market makers are generally required to price options contracts fairly by, among other things, bidding and offering so as to create differences of no more than $5 between the bid and offer following the opening rotation in an options contract.
The Exchange proposes to change this obligation to instead require that market makers quoting these in-the-money options series maintain quotes that are no wider than the spread between the NBBO in the underlying security. A market maker quoting an in-the-money options series can hedge its position by trading in the underlying security at the NBBO, which may be narrower than the quotation on the primary market. For instance, in the example above, other exchanges that trade ABC may collectively have a higher bid of $66 and a lower offer of $72. Under the proposed rule, ISE market makers would be required to quote in-the-money option series on ABC with a bid/offer differential of no more than $6. The Exchange believes that measuring the permissible width of a market maker's quote against the NBBO more accurately reflects the current trading environment where multiple trading venues contribute to the prevailing market price of a security underlying an options series traded on the ISE.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
This change is designed to benefit investors, who will be able to trade at better prices due to narrower spreads in in-the-money option series covered by the proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that market makers should maintain quotes that are no wider than the spread between the NBBO in the underlying security, as they can hedge their positions by trading in the underlying security at the NBBO, which may be narrower than the quotation on the primary market. As explained above, the Exchange believes that measuring the permissible width of a market maker's quote against the NBBO more accurately reflects the current trading environment where multiple trading venues contribute to the prevailing market price of a security underlying an options series traded on the ISE.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is intended to encourage tighter markets in in-the-money option series and is not designed to have any competitive impact. While market makers may be required to narrow their quotes in these series, the proposed rule change still affords sufficient flexibility to allow market makers to do so while managing their risk by hedging in the underlying security at the NBBO.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
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 Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
ISE Gemini proposes to amend its rules to require that market makers quoting certain in-the-money options series maintain quotes that are no wider than the spread between the NBBO in the underlying security. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
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
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 803(b)(4)(i) to require that market makers quoting certain in-the-money options series maintain quotes that are no wider than the spread between the national best bid and offer (“NBBO”) in the underlying security. The Exchange believes that requiring that market makers post tighter quotes in these option series will improve market quality to the benefit of investors that trade on ISE Gemini.
In the course of maintaining fair and orderly markets in appointed options classes, market makers are generally required to price options contracts fairly by, among other things, bidding and offering so as to create differences of no more than $5 between the bid and offer following the opening rotation in an options contract.
The Exchange proposes to change this obligation to instead require that market makers quoting these in-the-money options series maintain quotes that are no wider than the spread between the NBBO in the underlying security. A market maker quoting an in-the-money options series can hedge its position by trading in the underlying security at the NBBO, which may be narrower than the quotation on the primary market. For instance, in the example above, other exchanges that trade ABC may collectively have a higher bid of $66 and a lower offer of $72. Under the proposed rule, ISE Gemini market makers would be required to quote in-the-money option series on ABC with a bid/offer differential of no more than $6. The Exchange believes that measuring the permissible width of a market maker's quote against the NBBO more accurately reflects the current trading environment where multiple trading venues contribute to the prevailing market price of a security underlying an options series traded on ISE Gemini.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
This change is designed to benefit investors, who will be able to trade at better prices due to narrower spreads in in-the-money option series covered by the proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that market makers should maintain quotes that are no wider than the spread between the NBBO in the underlying security, as they can hedge their positions by trading in the underlying security at the NBBO, which may be narrower than the quotation on the primary market. As explained above, the Exchange believes that measuring the permissible width of a market maker's quote against the NBBO more accurately reflects the current trading environment where multiple trading venues contribute to the prevailing market price of a security underlying an options series traded on ISE Gemini.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is intended to encourage tighter markets in in-the-money option series and is not designed to have any competitive impact. While market makers may be required to narrow their quotes in these series, the proposed rule change still affords sufficient flexibility to allow market makers to do so while managing their risk by hedging in the underlying security at the NBBO.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
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 Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 22, 2014, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change SR-ICC-2014-05 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
ICC is proposing to update (1) its policy regarding valuation of maturing U.S. Treasury securities, and (2) its collateral asset haircut methodology. Under the proposed change, ICC will reduce the collateral valuation of maturing securities to $0 two business days prior to maturity. Clearing Participants will receive notice the week prior to any collateral maturity dates and will be encouraged to replace maturing securities with other acceptable collateral. If collateral matures while on deposit with ICC, proceeds will be credited to the margin or guaranty fund account, as appropriate, when received by ICC on the maturity day.
ICC has stated that it and other IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. clearing houses have applied this methodology when nearing the U.S. debt ceiling, so that this proposed rule change will provide consistent collateral valuation certainty at all times, as well as consistent implementation of this policy across other IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. clearing houses. ICC has also stated that revaluing the maturing securities two business days prior to maturity will allow for collection of additional margin or guaranty fund, if required, prior to maturity. ICC's Treasury Operations Policies and Procedures will be updated to reflect this change, and ICC plans to notify Clearing Participants of the change via circular, upon approval by the Commission.
Furthermore, in order to provide consistency in the calculation of collateral asset haircuts among the IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. clearing houses, ICC is updating its Risk Management Framework pursuant to the proposed change. Currently at ICC, haircuts for relevant assets (e.g. U.S. Treasury securities and currencies) are calculated using a five-day liquidation period and a 99% confidence interval expected shortfall calculation. Under the proposed rule change, the IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. clearing houses will calculate haircuts for relevant assets using the greater (which may be rounded to the nearest 1%) of: (i) The haircut determined using a five-day liquidation period and a 99% confidence interval expected shortfall calculation (currently used at ICC), and (ii) the haircut determined using a two day holding period and 99.9% confidence interval Value-at-Risk calculation. ICC has stated that because the haircut currently used by ICC, that is, the haircut determined by using the five-day liquidation period and a 99% confidence interval expected shortfall calculation, is usually greater than the haircut determined using the two day holding period and a 99.9% confidence interval Value-at-Risk calculation, the haircut currently used at ICC will continue to be the driver of haircuts and thus, this proposed rule change will have little practical impact on ICC's current haircut values. Furthermore, ICC has stated that as applied to currencies, should ICC choose to use one haircut for a given foreign exchange pair (e.g. USD v. Euro, Euro v. USD), ICC will apply the more conservative haircut. ICC has also stated that the changes to the methodology for calculation of collateral asset haircuts do not require any operational changes.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the Government Securities Division (“GSD”) Rulebook (the “GSD Rules”) to remove references to New York Portfolio Clearing, LLC (“NYPC”) and the cross-margining arrangement between NYPC and FICC (the “NYPC Arrangement”) from the GSD Rules, as the NYPC Arrangement is no longer in effect.
In its filing with the Commission, FICC 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. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
(i) The purpose of this filing is to remove references to NYPC and the NYPC Arrangement from the GSD Rules, as the NYPC Arrangement is no longer in effect.
On February 28, 2011, the Commission approved FICC's proposed rule change SR-FICC-2010-09 in order to allow FICC to offer cross-margining of certain cash positions cleared at GSD with certain interest rate futures positions cleared at NYPC and allow margin requirements with respect to such eligible cash and futures positions to be calculated as a single portfolio (the “NYPC Order”).
NYPC is jointly owned by NYSE Euronext (“NYSE”) and The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”), the parent company of FICC. On November 13, 2013, Intercontinental Exchange Group (“ICE”) completed its acquisition of NYSE.
Now that the migration of open interest in NYSE Liffe U.S. interest rate futures contracts from NYPC to ICE Clear Europe has been completed, the cross-margining agreement between FICC and NYPC (the “NYPC Agreement”) will be terminated and all references to NYPC and the NYPC Arrangement will be removed from the GSD Rules to reflect this change. In addition, FICC will no longer be providing the Commission with the reports enumerated in Section IV.D of the NYPC Order in light of the termination of the NYPC Arrangement.
FICC is proposing to amend the GSD Rules as follows:
In Rule 1—“
The term “Cross-Margining Agreement” is revised to remove the provision permitting an eligible GSD Member to elect to have its Required Fund Deposit in respect of Eligible Positions at FICC and its (or its Permitted Margin Affiliate's, if applicable) margin requirements in respect of Eligible Positions at an FCO calculated as if such positions were in a single portfolio, as such provision relates only to the NYPC Arrangement.
The term “FCO” is revised to remove the reference to NYPC.
The term “Margin Portfolio” is revised to remove the reference to NYPC Accounts.
The term “Market Professional Agreement for Cross-Margining” is revised to replace the reference to NYPC with a reference to the relevant FCO with whom FICC may, in the future, enter into a cross-margining arrangement for Market Professional customers.
The term “NYPC” is removed.
The term “NYPC Account” is removed.
The term “NYPC Market Professional Account” is removed.
The term “NYPC Member” is removed.
The term “NYPC Original Margin” is removed.
The term “NYPC Proprietary Account” is removed.
The term “NYPC-Submitted Trade” is removed.
The term “Permitted Margin Affiliate” is revised to remove the provision allowing an affiliate of a GSD Member that is a member of an FCO, but not itself a GSD Member, to be considered a Permitted Margin Affiliate for purposing of margining positions between FICC and the FCO as if such positions were in a single portfolio, as such provision relates only to the NYPC Arrangement.
The term “VaR Charge” is revised to remove language relating to any positions in a GSD Member's NYPC Accounts being grouped into a Margin Portfolio.
In Rule 3—“Ongoing Membership Requirements”, the reference to NYPC acting as a designated Locked-In Trade Source is removed from Section 11 and related conforming changes to the numbering of Section 11 are made.
In Rule 4—“Clearing Fund and Loss Allocation”, Sections 1a and 1b are revised to remove language related to designated NYPC Accounts being considered part of a GSD Member's Margin Portfolio. Sections 2, 3 and 3b are revised to remove language related to NYPC Original Margin in connection with provisions pertaining to the required form of a GSD Member's Required Fund Deposit. The provision of Section 7(a) pertaining to loss allocation if a Margin Portfolio of a Defaulting Member contains NYPC Accounts is removed and related conforming changes to the numbering of Section 7(a) are made.
In Rule 6C—“Locked-In Comparison”, Sections 2, 2a, 4 and 8 are revised to remove references to NYPC acting as a designated Locked-In Trade Source, as well as references to NYPC-Submitted Trades.
In Rule 13—“Funds-Only Settlement”, Section 5a pertaining to Funds-Only Settlement Bank arrangements for GSD Members that are also NYPC Members or that have Permitted Margin Affiliates that are NYPC Members is removed.
In Rule 22—“Insolvency of a Member”, the reference in Section 2(d) to a Permitted Margin Affiliate defaulting on its obligations to an FCO with which FICC has a Cross-Margining Agreement is removed, as such provision of the Permitted Margin Affiliate definition relates only to the NYPC Arrangement as described above. Similarly, the reference in Section 2(e) to a Cross-Margining Affiliate defaulting on its obligations to FICC is removed.
In Rule 22A—“Procedures for When the Corporation Ceases to Act”, language in Section 2(b) is removed that relates to close-out procedures for a GSD Member that has NYPC Accounts included within a Margin Portfolio.
In Rule 43—“Cross-Margining Arrangements”, the first paragraph of Section 1 is revised to remove the provision permitting an eligible GSD Member to elect to have its Required Fund Deposit in respect of Eligible Positions at FICC and its (or its Permitted Margin Affiliate's, if applicable) margin requirements in respect of Eligible Positions at an FCO calculated as if such positions were in a single portfolio, as such provision relates only to the NYPC Arrangement. The third paragraph of Section 1 is removed, as it relates to the right of first offset between NYPC and FICC vis a vis Cross-Margining Arrangements with other FCOs. In Section 2(b), the provision permitting an affiliate of an eligible GSD Member to become a Permitted Margin Affiliate for purposes of participating in a Cross-Margining Arrangement is removed, as such language relates only to the NYPC Arrangement. Similarly, in Section 4, the provision permitting, in certain circumstances, an eligible GSD Member that is a Cross-Margining Participant in a Cross-Margining Arrangement between FICC and one or more FCOs to be treated as insolvent by FICC in the event that its Permitted Margin Affiliate is deemed insolvent by an FCO is removed, as such language relates only to the NYPC Arrangement.
In the “Schedule of Timeframes”, references to computation of NYPC margin and reports related to NYPC margin requirements are removed.
In the “Designated Locked-In Trade Sources” schedule, NYPC is removed as a designated Locked-In Trade Source.
In the “Cross-Margining Agreements” schedule, the NYPC Agreement is removed.
FICC is proposing to remove the NYPC Agreement from the GSD Rules, as the NYPC Agreement is no longer in effect.
Removal of the references to NYPC and the NYPC Arrangement from the GSD Rules will necessitate certain amendments to the agreement between the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) and FICC (the “CME Agreement”) regarding the cross-margining arrangement currently conducted between CME and FICC (the “CME Arrangement”). Specifically, the CME Agreement will be amended to delete references to the NYPC Arrangement and the priority it held over the CME Arrangement when determining residual FICC positions that are available for cross-margining with the CME, as well as the right of first offset between NYPC and FICC when calculating and presenting liquidation results under the CME Agreement. The CME Agreement showing the proposed changes is attached hereto as part of Exhibit 5.
(ii) The proposed rule is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition because it relates to the removal of references in the GSD Rules to a cross-margining arrangement that is no longer in effect.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by FICC.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 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.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
• 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.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of AISystems, Inc. (a/k/a Airline Intelligence Systems, Inc.) because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2012.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Baeta Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2011.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of China Jianye Fuel, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2011.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Cordex Pharma, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2009.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Diamondhead Casino Corporation because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2011.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Emerald Dairy, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2011.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Kentucky Energy, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2011.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on June 18, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 1, 2014.
By the Commission.
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of State, including Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a), I hereby delegate to the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of State, to the extent authorized by law, the authority under Section 61 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2733), to waive the application of the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 8344 or 8468 on a case-by-case basis, for the reemployment of annuitants in the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) under the Civil Service Retirement System and Federal Employees' Retirement System;
This delegation of authority is not intended to revoke, amend, or otherwise affect the validity of any other delegation of authority.
Any act, executive order, regulation, or procedure subject to, or affected by, this delegation shall be deemed to be such act, executive order, regulation, or procedure as amended from time to time.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary may at any time exercise any authority or function delegated by this delegation of authority.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the laws of the United States, including 22 U.S.C. 2651a and 5 U.S.C. 3111 (“Section 3111”), and delegated to me by Delegation of Authority 198, dated September 16, 1992, to the extent authorized by law and pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 3111, I hereby delegate the authority of the Secretary to accept voluntary services for the United States to the following Department officials:
• Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Consular Affairs; and
• Legal Adviser.
Any official action within the scope of this delegation taken prior to the effective date of this delegation, by officers in the positions named above, are hereby continued in effect, according to their terms, until modified, revoked, or superseded by authorized action.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, and the Under Secretary of State for Management may at any time exercise the authority herein delegated.
This delegation of authority will be published in the
Department of State.
Notice; solicitation of comments.
NuStar Logistics, L.P. (NuStar) has applied to the U.S. Department of State (Department) for a Presidential Permit to replace a 2003 Presidential Permit issued to Valero Logistics Operations L.P. to construct, connect, operate, and maintain pipeline facilities (the Dos Laredos Pipeline) crossing the international border between the United States and Mexico at a location on the Rio Grande River known as “La Bota,” approximately six miles northwest of downtown Laredo, Texas. Specifically, NuStar requests a Presidential Permit that: (1) Reflects NuStar's name change from Valero Logistics Operations, L.P. to NuStar Logistics, L.P., as the owner and operator of the Dos Laredos Pipeline crossing the international boundary; and (2) expands the types of products that may be transported through the pipeline. The 2003 Presidential Permit only allows shipment of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), while NuStar now proposes to transport other specifically defined petroleum products, including diesel.
On December 30, 2003, the Department issued a “Finding of No Significant Impact and Summary Environmental Assessment; Valero Logistics LP Pipeline in Webb County, TX,” applicable to the Dos Laredos Pipeline (the 2003 Environmental Finding). In the 2003 Environmental Finding, the Department described the proposed Dos Laredos Pipeline as being designed to transport up to 32,400 barrels (1.36 million gallons) of LPG daily from the United States to Mexico. The Department concluded that issuance of a Presidential Permit authorizing the proposed Dos Laredos Pipeline would have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment within the United States, and further determined that granting a Presidential Permit for the Dos Laredos Pipeline would serve the national interest.
In accordance with the 2003 Environmental Finding and the 2003 Presidential Permit, the Dos Laredos Pipeline was constructed and went into service in 2004. The owner, Valero Logistics Operations, L.P., changed its name to NuStar Logistics, L.P. on April 1, 2007. In June 2011, NuStar temporarily suspended transportation of LPG on the Dos Laredos Pipeline. NuStar has continued to maintain the pipeline with the intent to place the pipeline back into active service in 2014.
On December 4, 2013, NuStar submitted an application to the Department requesting a new Presidential Permit for the Dos Laredos Pipeline. The Department has concluded, consistent with NEPA, that it will prepare a Supplemental EA to determine whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the human environment.
The purpose of this Notice of Intent is to inform the public about the proposed action, announce plans for determining the scope of the review, invite public participation in the scoping process, and solicit public comments for consideration in establishing the scope and content of the Supplemental EA.
Submit comments on or before August 4, 2014. The public scoping period starts with the publication of this Notice in the
Parties may submit comments on the scope and content of the Supplemental EA through the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
Comments are not private. They will be posted on the site
Office of Environmental Quality and Transboundary Issues, Attn: Mr. Travis Grout, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Room 2726, Washington, DC 20520. Tel: (202) 647-4284.
Project details and environmental information on the NuStar application
The Dos Laredos Pipeline is an 8 and
NuStar has requested authorization to expand the types of products that may be transported through the pipeline to include LPG and other specified petroleum products, including diesel. Specifically, NuStar has requested a Presidential Permit that allows transportation of any petroleum product that, by American Society for Testing Materials test methods,: (1) Substantially distills below 700 degrees Fahrenheit; (2) has a Reid vapor pressure not exceeding 28 pounds at 100 degrees Fahrenheit; and (3) is a color not darker than No. 3. NuStar's request excludes certain petroleum products legally prohibited from being exported by statute or regulation. As stated above, the 2003 Presidential Permit only allows shipment of LPG. No substantial physical changes to the pipeline would be required to transport the expanded range of petroleum products. NuStar expects to transport no more than 24,000 barrels per day of refined petroleum products, in contrast to the 32,400 barrels per day of LPG that the Dos Laredos Pipeline has transported, because of differences in viscosity and flow characteristics. While the proposed operational change in products would require some physical change of pipeline facilities within the U.S. terminal, NuStar is not proposing any construction on the U.S. portion of the Dos Laredos Pipeline facilities outside the fence line of the U.S. terminal and no specific support infrastructure or access roads are necessary or required by state or regional plans with respect to the border-crossing facilities.
The Department, consistent with NEPA, will prepare the Supplemental EA to determine whether the approval of a Presidential Permit for NuStar to transport a broader range of petroleum products, including diesel, using the Dos Laredos Pipeline would result in significant impacts to the human environment. The Department will also evaluate reasonable alternatives, including a “no action” alternative, to the proposed project or portions of the project. Below, the Department invites interested parties to submit comments to assist in determining the appropriate scope and content of that Supplemental EA.
The Department will select a Third-Party Contractor to assist with preparation of the Supplemental EA and related tasks. The draft and final Supplemental EA will be prepared under the direction of the Department.
A draft Supplemental EA will be released to the public and distributed to relevant government agencies and stakeholders. Once the draft Supplemental EA is published, all interested parties will have an opportunity to provide specific comments or concerns about the draft Supplemental EA. The Department will consider all timely submissions received about the draft Supplemental EA and will incorporate them, as appropriate, into the final Supplemental EA.
Department of State.
Notice of public meeting.
The Department of State (Department) will hold a public meeting to discuss the rechartering of the International Telecommunications Advisory Committee (ITAC), a Department federal advisory committee. This notice announces the meeting and provides the agenda.
The public meeting will be held on June 30, 2014, at 2 p.m. ET in Room 4835, Harry S Truman Building, 2201 C Street NW., Washington DC (please note pre-clearance instructions below). Written comments will be received until July 7, 2014.
Paul Najarian,
The Department is considering the renewal of the ITAC charter; and, to assist in this process, we will hold a public meeting to discuss the operation of the ITAC and suggestions on making it a more effective avenue for providing advice to the Department. The current ITAC charter (which expires on August 9, 2014) can be found at
The public meeting will provide a forum for the public, including interested stakeholders, to provide views on whether the ITAC should be rechartered, and suggestions on possible restructuring of the committee. We especially invite comment on the following questions:
1. How frequently should the ITAC meet and where?
2. Should there be a phone bridge for ITAC meetings?
3. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires the membership of the advisory committee to be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee. Individuals representing themselves cannot be members of a Federal Advisory Committee.
a. What should the Department consider when naming representatives of entities to the ITAC?
b. Should the Department limit the number of members of the ITAC? Note: ITAC meetings are open to the public.
4. The Department established an email list as a convenient means of communicating with regard to the ITAC.
a. Should the Department continue using the email list?
b. Should members of the list be able to transmit email to the list, or should it be “read only” for the list members?
c. What types of communication on an email list would help advance the work of the advisory committee?
d. What is inappropriate use of the email list and how should the Department address it?
This meeting is open to public participation, though seating is limited. Entry to the building is controlled. To obtain pre-clearance for entry, a member
Personal data is requested pursuant to Pub. L. 99-399 (Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986), as amended; Pub. L. 107-56 (USA PATRIOT Act); and Executive Order 13356. The purpose of the collection is to validate the identity of individuals who enter Department facilities. The data will be entered into the Visitor Access Control System (VACS-D) database. Please see the Security Records System of Records Notice (State-36) at
Notice of meeting.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Park Service (NPS), in accordance with the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000, announce the next meeting of the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group (NPOAG) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). This notification provides the date, location, and agenda for the meeting.
Keith Lusk, AWP-1SP, Special Programs Staff, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region Headquarters, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007, telephone: (310) 725-3808, email:
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (NPATMA), enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106-181, required the establishment of the NPOAG within one year after its enactment. The Act requires that the NPOAG be a balanced group of representatives of general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and Native American tribes. The Administrator of the FAA and the Director of NPS (or their designees) serve as ex officio members of the group. Representatives of the Administrator and Director serve alternating 1-year terms as chairperson of the advisory group.
The duties of the NPOAG include providing advice, information, and recommendations to the FAA Administrator and the NPS Director on; implementation of Public Law 106-181; quiet aircraft technology; other measures that might accommodate interests to visitors of national parks; and at the request of the Administrator and the Director, on safety, environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour operations over national parks or tribal lands.
The agenda for the meeting will include, but is not limited to, an update on ongoing park specific air tour planning projects, commercial air tour reporting, and agency research on effects of aircraft noise on park visitors.
Although this is not a public meeting, interested persons may attend. Because seating is limited, if you plan to attend please contact the person listed under
If you cannot attend the NPOAG meeting, a summary record of the meeting will be made available under the NPOAG section of the FAA ATMP Web site at:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327.
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans, that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
California Department of
Effective July 1, 2007, the FHWA assigned, and Caltrans assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that the Caltrans, has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1. General: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321-4335].
2. Air: Clean Air Act [23 U.S.C. 109 (j) and 42 U.S.C 7521(a)].
3. Land: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303]; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act [16 U.S.C. 1271-1287]; The Public Health and Welfare [42 U.S.C. 4331 (b)(2)].
4. Wildlife: Federal Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1543]; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-666(C); Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 760c-760g].
5. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq.]; Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1977 [16 U.S.C. 470(aa)-470(ll)]; Archeological and Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 469-469(c)]; Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) [25 U.S.C. 3001-3013].
6. Social and Economic: NEPA implementation [23 U.S.C. 109(h)]; Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)-2000(d)(1)].
7. Wetlands and Water Resources: Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. 1344]; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act [16 U.S.C. 1271-1287].
8. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 13112 Invasive Species; E.O. 11988 Floodplain management; E.O. 12898 Federal actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations.
23 U.S.C. 139(
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of Applications for Modification of Special Permits
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR Part 107, Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the applications described herein. This notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of application have been shown in earlier
Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2014.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washing-ton DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for modification of special permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of Applications for Special Permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR Part 107, Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before August 19, 2014.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(6); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on Special Permit Applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR Part 107, Subpart 13), notice is hereby given of the actions on special permits applications in (May to May 2014). The mode of transportation involved are identified by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft, Application numbers prefixed by the letters EE represent applications for Emergency Special Permits. It should be noted that some of the sections cited were those in effect at the time certain special permits were issued.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of Applications Delayed more than 180 days.
In accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c), PHMSA is publishing the following list of special permit applications that have been in process for 180 days or more. The reason(s) for delay and the expected completion date for action on each application is provided in association with each identified application.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Special Permits and Approvals, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
30-day notice of request for approval for extension: Applications for Land-Use-Exemption Permits.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3519 (PRA), the Surface Transportation Board (Board) gives notice that it is requesting from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of an extension of the information collection—Applications for Land-Use-Exemption Permits (for Solid Waste Rail Transfer Facilities)—further described below. The Board previously published a notice about this collection in the
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10501(c)(2), as amended by the Clean Railroads Act of 2008 (CRA), the Board issued rules in
Under 49 CFR 1155.20, an applicant is required to file a notice of intent to apply for a land-use-exemption permit before filing its application. A suggested form for this notice may be found in Appendix A to part 1155. Further, under 49 CFR 1155.21(e), an application must include a draft
Comments may now be submitted to OMB concerning: (1) The accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (2) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (3) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology when appropriate; and (4) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility. Submitted comments will be summarized and included in the Board's request for OMB approval.
Comments on this information collection should be submitted by July 28, 2014.
Written comments should be identified as “Paperwork Reduction Act Comments, Surface Transportation Board, Applications for Land-Use-Exemption Permits.” These comments should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Patrick Fuchs, Surface Transportation Board Desk Officer, by email at by fax at (202) 395-6974; or by mail to Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
For further information regarding the Applications for Land-Use-Exemption Permits, contact Danielle Gosselin at (202) 245-0300 or
Under the PRA, a federal agency conducting or sponsoring a collection of information must display a currently valid OMB control number. A collection of information, which is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), includes agency requirements or requests that persons submit reports, keep records, or provide information to the agency, third parties, or the public. Section 3507(b) of the PRA requires, concurrent with an agency's submitting a collection to OMB for approval, a 30-day notice and comment period through publication in the
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before July 21, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by emailing
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Under the PRA, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning its information collection titled, “Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards.”
You should submit written comments by: August 19, 2014.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0202, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
You can request additional information or a copy of the collection from Johnny Vilela or Mary H. Gottlieb, (202) 874-5090, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
The OCC is proposing to extend OMB approval of the following information collection:
This information collection is required by section 303(a)
Section 22.6 requires a national bank to use the Standard Flood Hazard Determination Form developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and to maintain a completed copy of that form for the period of time the bank owns the loan.
Section 22.7 requires a national bank or its loan servicer, if a borrower has not obtained flood insurance, to notify the borrower to obtain adequate flood insurance coverage or the bank or servicer will purchase flood insurance on the borrower's behalf.
Section 22.9 requires a national bank making, extending, increasing, or renewing a loan secured by a building or a mobile home located in a special flood hazard area to advise the borrower and the loan servicer that the property is located in a special flood hazard area; provide a description of the flood insurance purchase requirements; and provide information regarding the availability of insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program and of Federal assistance in the event of a declared Federal flood disaster. In lieu of providing the borrower notice, a national bank may obtain a satisfactory written assurance from a seller or lessor that, within a reasonable time before completion of the sale or lease transaction, the seller or lessor provided such notice to the purchaser or lessee. For the period of time the bank owns the loan, the bank must maintain a record of the borrower's and loan servicer's receipts of these notices and, where appropriate, the written assurance from the seller or the lessor.
Section 22.10 requires a national bank making, increasing, extending, renewing, selling, or transferring a loan secured by a building or a mobile home located in a special flood hazard area to notify FEMA of the identity of the servicer, and of any change in servicers.
These information collection requirements ensure bank compliance with applicable Federal law, further bank safety and soundness, provide protections for banks and the public, and further public policy interests.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless the information collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Under the PRA, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning renewal of its information collection titled, “Fair Housing Home Loan Data System Regulation.”
You should submit your comments by August 19, 2014.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0159, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Johnny Vilela or Mary H. Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officers, (202) 649-5490, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OCC is proposing to extend approval of the following information collection:
The information collection requirements are as follows:
• 12 CFR 27.3(a) requires national banks that are required to collect data on home loans under 12 CFR part 203
• 12 CFR 27.3(b) lists the information banks should seek to obtain from an applicant as part of a home loan application, and also sets forth information that a bank must disclose in collecting certain information from an applicant.
• 12 CFR 27.3(c) sets forth additional information required to be kept in the loan file.
• 12 CFR 27.4 states that the OCC may require a national bank to maintain a Fair Housing Inquiry/Application Log found in Appendix III to part 27 if there is reason to believe that the bank is engaging in discriminatory practices or if analysis of the data compiled by the bank under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (12 U.S.C. 2801
• 12 CFR 27.5 requires a national bank to maintain the information required by § 27.3 for 25 months after the bank notifies the applicant of action taken on an application, or after withdrawal of an application.
• 12 CFR 27.7 requires a national bank to submit the information required by §§ 27.3 and 27.4 to the OCC upon its request, prior to a scheduled examination using the Monthly Home Loan Activity Format form in Appendix I to part 27 and the Home Loan Data Form in Appendix IV to part 27.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the information collection;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Department of Veterans Affairs
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is publishing a summary of legal interpretations issued by the Office of the General Counsel involving Veterans' benefits under laws administered by VA. These interpretations are considered precedential by VA and will be followed by VA officials and employees in future claim matters involving the same legal issues. The summary is published to provide the public, and, in particular, Veterans' benefits claimants and their representatives, with notice of VA's interpretations regarding the legal matters at issue.
Susan P. Sokoll, Law Librarian, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW. (026H), Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-7623.
A VA regulation at 38 CFR 2.6(e)(8) delegates to the General Counsel the power to designate an opinion as precedential and 38 CFR 14.507(b) specifies that precedential opinions involving Veterans' benefits are binding on VA officials and employees in subsequent matters involving the legal issue decided in the precedent opinion. The interpretation of the General Counsel on legal matters, contained in such opinions, is conclusive as to all VA officials and employees, not only in the matter at issue, but also in future adjudications and appeals involving the same legal issues, in the absence of a change in controlling statute or regulation or a superseding written legal opinion of the General Counsel.
VA publishes summaries of such opinions in order to provide the public with notice of those interpretations of
On September 4, 2013, the Attorney General announced that the President directed the Executive Branch to cease enforcement of the definitions of “spouse” and “surviving spouse” in title 38, United States Code, to the extent that they limit recognition of marital status to couples of the opposite sex. Given the President's instruction, how should VA determine effective dates for benefits based on same-sex marriage?
1. The President's directive to cease enforcement of the definitions of “spouse” and “surviving spouse” in title 38, United States Code, to the extent that those definitions preclude recognition of same-sex marriages, should be given retroactive effect as it relates to claims still open on direct review as of September 4, 2013. If VA awards benefits in such a case, the effective date of the award should be determined under 38 U.S.C. § 5110 as if the statutes barring recognition of same-sex marriage were not in effect when the claim was filed.
2. For new claims or reopened claims received after September 4, 2013, VA should apply 38 U.S.C. § 5110(g) to assign an effective date if to do so would be to the claimant's benefit. However, if a new claim establishes entitlement to an effective date earlier than September 4, 2013, by operation of 38 U.S.C. § 5110(d)-(f), (h), (j)-(l), or (n), then section 5110(g) should not be applied to limit the availability of that earlier effective date.
How will the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administer spousal benefits in accordance with 38 U.S.C. § 103(c) in light of variances in state law on the issue of same-sex marriage?
1. The plain language of section 103(c) requires that a person be married to a Veteran to be considered the “spouse” of the Veteran and requires VA to look to state law to determine the validity of a marriage. A domestic partnership or civil union that is not recognized as a “marriage” under state law cannot be considered a valid marriage for VA purposes.
2. Section 103(c) provides two alternative bases for determining the validity of a marriage. Section 103(c) provides that VA shall look to “the law of the place where the parties resided at the time of the marriage or the law of the place where the parties resided when the right to benefits accrued” (emphasis added). Under this standard, if a marriage is valid in one of the places of residence identified in the statute, it will be valid for VA purposes, even if it was not recognized as valid under the laws of any other place in which the parties resided.
3. Under section 103(c), “at the time of the marriage” means when the parties entered into the marriage. If the parties' marriage is valid under the law of the place where they resided at the time of the inception of their marriage, it is valid for VA purposes.
4. We construe the term “when the right to benefits accrued” in section 103(c) to refer to: (1) The point in time at which the claimant filed a claim that is ultimately found to be meritorious in establishing entitlement to a benefit or increased benefit for which a marriage to a Veteran is a prerequisite; or (2) if entitlement cannot be established as existing at the time the claim is submitted, then at such later date as of which all requirements of entitlement are met. Once VA has determined a marriage valid under section 103(c), such determination shall be recognized in subsequent adjudicatory decisions involving the same or other VA benefits unless there is a change in marital status through death or judicial action.
5. The phrase “place where the parties resided” is interpreted to mean the place where the parties regularly lived or had their home, as distinguished from a place in which they were present on a temporary basis. The provision includes parties who lived in a place continuously for a reasonable period of time and those who relocated to a place with the intent to live there either permanently or for a reasonable period of time. A party's temporary absence from the place they ordinarily lived would not defeat the finding that they resided in that place. If the parties resided in different jurisdictions at their time of marriage, VA may consider the marriage valid for VA purposes if it is valid under the law of either jurisdiction. In addition to U.S. states, the term “place” may include U.S. territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, foreign nations, and other areas governed by a recognized system of laws pertaining to marriage, such as tribal laws.
6. The plain language of section 103(c) applies only to determine the validity of a marriage to a Veteran. It thus applies for purposes of establishing eligibility or ineligibility for benefits or services provided on the basis of the marriage of a “veteran” (including, in some instances, active-duty service members and others defined to be “veterans” under certain statutory provisions). In other instances, however, when VA provides benefits or services based on the marital status of an individual who is not considered a Veteran, section 103(c) generally would not apply in determining the validity of a marriage to such an individual.
On June 17, 2014, Will A. Gunn, General Counsel, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit this notice to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Secretary proposes to amend the Student Assistance General Provisions regulations issued under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), to implement the changes made to the Clery Act by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA). These proposed regulations would update, clarify, and improve the current regulations.
We must receive your comments on or before July 21, 2014.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
If you are submitting comments electronically, we strongly encourage you to submit any comments or attachments in Microsoft Word format. If you must submit a comment in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF), we strongly encourage you to convert the PDF to print-to-PDF format or to use some other commonly used searchable text format.
•
•
The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Jessica Finkel, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 8031, Washington, DC 20006-8502. Telephone (202) 502-7647 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.
On March 7th, 2013, President Obama signed the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA) (Pub. Law 113-4), which, among other provisions, amended section 485(f) of the HEA, otherwise known as the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act). The Clery Act requires institutions of higher education to comply with certain campus safety- and security-related requirements as a condition of their participation in the title IV, HEA programs. Notably, VAWA amended the Clery Act to require institutions to compile statistics for incidents of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking and to include certain policies, procedures, and programs pertaining to these incidents in their annual security reports. We propose to amend § 668.46 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in order to implement these statutory changes. Additionally, we propose to update this section by incorporating provisions added to the Clery Act by the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, deleting outdated deadlines and cross-references, and making other changes to improve the readability and clarity of the regulations.
The proposed regulations would—
• Require institutions to maintain statistics about the number of incidents of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking that meet the proposed definitions of those terms.
• Revise the definition of “rape” to reflect the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) recently updated definition in the UCR Summary Reporting System, which encompasses the categories of rape, sodomy, and sexual assault with an object that are used in the UCR National Incident-Based Reporting System.
• Revise the categories of bias for the purposes of Clery Act hate crime reporting to add gender identity and to separate ethnicity and national origin into independent categories.
• Require institutions to provide and describe in their annual security reports primary prevention and awareness programs to incoming students and new employees. These programs must include: A statement that the institution prohibits the crimes of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking; the definition of these terms in the applicable jurisdiction; the definition of consent, in reference to sexual activity, in the applicable jurisdiction; a description of safe and positive options for bystander intervention; information on risk reduction; and information on the institution's policies and procedures after a sex offense occurs;
• Require institutions to provide and describe in their annual security reports ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns for students and employees. These campaigns must include the same information as in the institution's primary prevention and awareness program;
• Define the terms “awareness programs,” “bystander intervention,” “ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns,” “primary prevention programs,” and “risk reduction.”
• Require institutions to describe each type of disciplinary proceeding used by the institution; the steps, anticipated timelines, and decision-making process for each type of disciplinary proceeding; and how the institution determines which type of proceeding to use based on the circumstances of an allegation of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
• Require institutions to list all of the possible sanctions that the institution may impose following the results of any institutional disciplinary proceedings for an allegation of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
• Require institutions to describe the range of protective measures that the institution may offer following an allegation of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
• Require institutions to provide for a prompt, fair, and impartial disciplinary proceeding in which (1) officials are appropriately trained and do not have a
• Define the terms “proceeding” and “result.”
• Specify that compliance with these provisions does not constitute a violation of section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g), commonly known as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA).
Please refer to the Summary of Proposed Changes section of this preamble for more details on the major provisions contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
Institutions would incur costs under the proposed regulations in two main categories: Paperwork costs of complying with the regulations, and other compliance costs that institutions may incur as they attempt to improve security on campus. Under the proposed regulations, institutions would incur costs involved in updating the annual security reports; changing crime statistics reporting to capture additional crimes, categories of crimes, differentiation of hate crimes, and expansion of categories of bias reported; and the development of statements of policy about prevention programs and institutional disciplinary actions. Institutions would also incur additional costs in attempting to comply with the new regulations. Costs to improve safety on campus would include annual training of officials on issues related to dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking as well as training on how to conduct disciplinary proceeding investigations and hearings. The proposed regulations are not estimated to have a significant net budget impact in the title IV, HEA student aid programs over loan cohorts from 2014 to 2024.
To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to identify clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations that each of your comments addresses, and provide relevant information and data whenever possible, even when there is no specific solicitation of data and other supporting materials in the request for comment. We also urge you to arrange your comments in the same order as the proposed regulations. Please do not submit comments outside the scope of the specific proposals in this notice of proposed rulemaking, as we are not required to respond to comments that are outside of the scope of the proposed rule. See
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed regulations. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the Department's programs and activities.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about the proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person in room 8055, 1990 K Street NW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. If you want to schedule time to inspect comments, please contact the person listed under
On March 7th, 2013, President Obama signed VAWA (Pub. L. 113-4). VAWA included amendments to section 485(f) of the HEA, the Clery Act. The Clery Act requires institutions of higher education to comply with certain campus safety- and security-related requirements as a condition of their participation in the Federal student financial aid programs authorized by title IV of the HEA. Notably, VAWA amended the Clery Act to require institutions to compile statistics of the number of incidents of dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking reported to campus security authorities or local police agencies, in addition to the crimes currently identified. Institutions also must include certain policies, procedures, and programs pertaining to these incidents in their annual security reports. We propose to amend 34 CFR § 668.46 to implement these statutory changes. Additionally, we propose to update this section by incorporating certain provisions added to the Clery Act by the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, deleting outdated deadlines and cross-references, and making other changes to improve the readability and clarity of the regulations.
On April 16, 2013, we published a notice in the
On May 13, 2013, we announced in the
Section 492 of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. 1098a, requires the Secretary to obtain public involvement in the development of proposed regulations affecting programs authorized by title IV of the HEA. After obtaining advice and recommendations from the public, including individuals and representatives of groups involved in the title IV, HEA programs, the Secretary must subject the proposed regulations to a negotiated rulemaking process. If negotiators reach consensus on the proposed regulations, the Department agrees to publish without alteration a defined group of regulations on which the negotiators reached consensus unless the Secretary reopens the process or provides a written explanation to the participants stating why the Secretary has decided to depart from the agreement reached during negotiations. Further information on the negotiated rulemaking process can be found at:
On September 19, 2013, the Department published a notice in the
The Department sought negotiators to represent students; legal assistance organizations that represent students; consumer advocacy organizations; State higher education executive officers; State Attorneys General and other appropriate State officials; institutions of higher education eligible to receive Federal assistance under title III, parts A, B, and F and title V of the HEA, which include Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, Predominantly Black Institutions, and other institutions with a substantial enrollment of needy students as defined in title III of the HEA; two-year public institutions of higher education; four-year public institutions of higher education; private, non-profit institutions of higher education; private, for-profit institutions of higher education; institutional campus public safety officials; institutional student affairs/disciplinary divisions; institutional centers for women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered individuals; institutional attorneys; Indian tribal governments; and campus safety advocates. The Department considered the nominations submitted by the public and chose negotiators who would represent various interested constituencies and the negotiated rulemaking committee met to develop proposed regulations on January 13-14, 2014, February 24-25, 2014, and March 31-April 1, 2014. At its first meeting, the committee reached agreement on its protocols, which generally set out the committee membership, and the standards by which the committee would operate. These protocols provided, among other things, that the non-Federal negotiators would represent the organizations listed after their names in the protocols. The committee included the following members:
The protocols also provided that the committee would operate by consensus. The protocols also specified that consensus means that there must be no dissent by any members. Under the
During the committee meetings, the committee reviewed and discussed the Department's drafts of regulatory language and the committee members' alternative language and suggestions. At the final meeting on April 1, 2014, the committee reached consensus on the Department's proposed regulations. For more information on the negotiated rulemaking sessions, please visit
The proposed regulations would—
• Add and define the terms “Clery Geography,” “dating violence,” “domestic violence,” “Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program (FBI's UCR program),” “hate crime,” “Hierarchy Rule,” “programs to prevent dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking,” “sexual assault,” and “stalking.”
• Require institutions to address in their annual security reports their current policies concerning campus law enforcement, including the jurisdiction of security personnel, as well as any agreements, such as written memoranda of understanding between the institution and those police agencies, for the investigation of alleged criminal offenses.
• Require institutions to address in their annual security reports their policies to encourage accurate and prompt reporting of all crimes to the campus police and the appropriate police agencies when the victim of a crime elects to or is unable to make such a report.
• Require institutions to provide written information to victims about the procedures that one should follow if a crime of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking has occurred, including written information about:
○ The importance of preserving evidence that may assist in proving that the alleged criminal offense occurred or may be helpful in obtaining a protection order;
○ How and to whom the alleged offense should be reported;
○ The victim's options about the involvement of law enforcement and campus authorities, including the options to notify proper law enforcement authorities, be assisted by campus authorities in notifying law enforcement authorities, and decline to notify authorities; and
○ The victim's rights and the institution's responsibilities with respect to orders of protection or similar orders issued by a court or by the institution.
• Require institutions to address in their annual security reports how the institution will complete publicly available recordkeeping requirements, including Clery Act reporting and disclosures, without the inclusion of identifying information about the victim;
• Require institutions to address in their annual security reports how the institution will maintain as confidential any accommodations or protective measures provided to the victim, to the extent that maintaining such confidentiality would not impair the ability of the institution to provide the accommodations or protective measures.
• Require institutions to specify in their annual security reports that they will provide written notification to students and employees about existing counseling, health, mental health, victim advocacy, legal assistance, visa and immigration assistance, and other services available for victims both within the institution and in the community.
• Require institutions to specify in their annual security reports that they will provide written notification to victims about options for, and available assistance in, changing academic, living, transportation, and working situations and clarify that the institution must make these accommodations if the victim requests them and if they are reasonably available, regardless of whether the victim chooses to report the crime to campus police or local law enforcement.
• Require institutions to specify in their annual security reports that, when a student or employee reports to the institution that the student or employee has been a victim of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, whether the offense occurred on or off campus, the institution will provide the student or employee a written explanation of the student's or employee's rights and options.
• Require institutions to maintain statistics about the number of incidents of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking that meet the proposed definitions of those terms.
• Revise the definition of “rape” to reflect the FBI's recently updated definition in the UCR Summary Reporting System, which encompasses the categories of rape, sodomy, and sexual assault with an object that are used in the UCR National Incident-Based Reporting System.
• Revise and update the definitions of “sex offenses,” “fondling,” “incest,” and “statutory rape” in Appendix A to subpart D of part 668 to reflect the FBI's updated definitions.
• Emphasize that institutions must, for the purposes of Clery Act reporting, include in their crime statistics all crimes reported to a campus security authority.
• Clarify that an institution may not withhold, or subsequently remove, a reported crime from its crime statistics based on a decision by a court, coroner, jury, prosecutor, or other similar noncampus official.
• Specify that Clery Act reporting does not require initiating an investigation or disclosing identifying information about the victim.
• Revise the categories of bias for the purposes of Clery Act hate crime reporting to add gender identity and to separate ethnicity and national origin into independent categories.
• Specify how institutions should record reports of stalking, including how to record reports in which the stalking included activities in more than one calendar year or in more than one location within the institution's Clery Act-reportable areas, and how to determine when to report a new crime of stalking involving the same victim and perpetrator.
• Create an exception to the requirements of the Hierarchy Rule in the UCR Reporting Handbook for situations in which an individual is a victim of a sex offense and a murder during the same incident so that the incident will be included in both categories.
• Clarify that an institution must withhold as confidential the names and other identifying information of victims when providing timely warnings.
• Implement the requirements pertaining to an institution's educational programs to promote the awareness of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking by:
○ Requiring institutions to describe in their annual security reports the institution's primary prevention and awareness programs for incoming students and new employees, which must include: A statement that the institution prohibits the crimes of dating
○ Requiring institutions to provide and describe in their annual security reports ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns for students and employees, which must include the same information as in the institution's primary prevention and awareness program; and
○ Defining the terms “awareness programs,” “bystander intervention,” “ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns,” “primary prevention programs,” and “risk reduction.”
• Implement requirements pertaining to an institution's procedures for campus disciplinary action in cases of alleged dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking by:
○ Requiring institutions to describe each type of disciplinary proceeding used by the institution; the steps, anticipated timelines, and decision-making process for each type of disciplinary proceeding; and how the institution determines which type of proceeding to use based on the circumstances of an allegation of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
○ Requiring institutions to list all of the possible sanctions that the institution may impose following the results of any institutional disciplinary proceedings for an allegation of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
○ Requiring institutions to describe the range of protective measures that the institution may offer following an allegation of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
○ Requiring institutions to provide for prompt, fair, and impartial disciplinary proceedings in which: (1) Officials are appropriately trained and do not have a conflict of interest or bias for or against the accuser or the accused; (2) the accuser and the accused have equal opportunities to have others present, including an advisor of their choice; (3) the accuser and the accused receive simultaneous notification, in writing, of the result of the proceeding and any available appeal procedures; (4) the proceeding is completed in a reasonably prompt timeframe; (5) the accuser and accused are given timely notice of meetings at which one or the other or both may be present; and (6) the accuser, the accused, and appropriate officials are given timely access to information that will be used after the fact-finding investigation but during informal and formal disciplinary meetings and hearings;
○ Defining the terms “proceeding” and “result;” and
○ Specifying that compliance with these provisions does not constitute a violation of FERPA.
• Prohibit retaliation by an institution or an officer, employee, or agent of an institution against any individual for exercising their rights or responsibilities under any provision under the Clery Act.
Very generally, section 304 of VAWA amended section 485(f) of the HEA, otherwise known as the Clery Act, to: Expand reporting of crime statistics to capture a more accurate picture of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking on our nation's campuses; strengthen institutional policies related to these crimes; provide greater support and accommodations for victims; and protect the rights of both parties (accuser and accused) during institutional disciplinary proceedings. During the negotiated rulemaking process that resulted in these proposed regulations, the committee was guided by several key principles.
First, VAWA amended the Clery Act, but it did not affect in any way title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (title IX), its implementing regulations, or associated guidance issued by the Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
Second, the committee set out to develop inclusive, effective, and fair regulations that protect the rights of all students. The negotiators worked hard to craft regulatory language that takes into account the unique needs of diverse communities and individuals, paying careful attention to words that might be viewed as insensitive or unwelcoming.
And third, the committee recognized that, while there is important and urgent work being done in the sexual violence prevention field, the Clery Act and VAWA do not require institutions to use specific materials for prevention policies and procedures. The committee believed strongly that institutions should use practices that have been shown through research and assessment to be effective. The Department expects that best practices information will be released a separate document following issuance of final regulations.
We discuss substantive issues under the sections of the proposed regulations to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address proposed regulatory provisions that are technical or otherwise minor in effect.
Section 668.46(f) requires institutions that have a campus police or security department to maintain a daily crime log that records any crime reported to that department that occurred on campus, on a noncampus building or property, on public property (as those terms are defined in § 668.46(a)), or within the patrol jurisdiction of the campus police or security department.
Other negotiators, however, objected to the proposed addition of a definition of consent. They argued that a definition would create ambiguity and confusion for institutional officials, students, employees, and the public, particularly in jurisdictions which either do not define consent or have a definition that differed from the one that would be in the regulations. Some negotiators, particularly those representing law enforcement and institutional attorneys, believed that it would be difficult and create a burden for law enforcement officials to classify crimes based on two different standards, and that campus public safety officials would be expected to make decisions about consent based on situations outside their areas of expertise and without a bright-line standard. One of the negotiators argued that it would not be reasonable to add a definition of consent for Clery Act reporting purposes when VAWA specifically added a reference to the definition of consent in the applicable jurisdiction for the purposes of prevention and training. Along these lines, some negotiators noted that some institutions use their own definition of “consent” for purposes of their institutional disciplinary procedures. These officials asserted that adding a definition of consent to these regulations could cause confusion by creating situations where an institution might have three separate definitions of consent relating to sexual activity for different purposes.
After considering these arguments, the Department decided to include a definition of consent in the Department's initial draft regulations presented to the negotiators. Drawing on materials from other Federal agencies, State statutes, and institutions, we drafted language to define “consent” as the affirmative, unambiguous, and voluntary agreement to engage in a specific sexual activity during a sexual encounter. Under this definition, an individual who was asleep, or mentally or physically incapacitated, either through the effect of drugs or alcohol or for any other reason, or who was under duress, threat, coercion, or force, would not have been able to give consent. Further, one would not be able to infer consent under circumstances in which consent was not clear, including but not limited to the absence of “no” or “stop,” or the existence of a prior or current relationship or sexual activity. Several of the negotiators endorsed this draft language as a starting point and some made suggestions to strengthen it. On the other hand, some negotiators vigorously objected to including the definition, reiterating concerns about the potential for confusion caused by multiple definitions.
After further consideration, the Department decided to remove the definition of consent from the draft regulations. At the third session of the negotiations, we explained that, while we believed that our draft language is a valid starting point for other efforts related to the prevention of campus sexual assaults, we were not convinced that it would be helpful to institutions for purposes of complying with the Clery Act. Specifically, we noted that for purposes of Clery Act reporting, all sex offenses that are reported to a campus security authority must be recorded in an institution's Clery Act statistics and, if reported to the campus police, must be included in the crime log, regardless of the issue of consent. Thus, while the definitions of the sex offenses in Appendix A to subpart D of part 668 include lack of consent as an element of the offense, for purposes of Clery Act reporting, no determination as to whether that element has been met is required.
Some of the negotiators disagreed, arguing that the references to a lack of consent in various parts of the proposed regulations, such as the definitions of the sex offenses in Appendix A to subpart D of part 668, demands an affirmative definition of consent in order to permit determinations of when consent is absent. In the end, however, the negotiators agreed not to include a definition of consent in these regulations, but they requested that the Department include further clarification and guidance around the issue of consent in future documents and
While the term “dating violence” is defined in the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, the Department received numerous requests at the public hearings, during the public comment period and from some of the negotiators, to further define some of the words used in the statutory definition of the term. In particular, we were asked to clarify how institutions should determine whether individuals were in a dating relationship when the violence occurred, specify what types of behavior would be considered violence, clarify the interaction between dating violence and domestic violence, and explain how to address incidents of dating violence in jurisdictions where dating violence is not a crime.
The negotiators had a substantial discussion on how to determine whether individuals were in a dating relationship when the violence occurred. In particular, the negotiators suggested three possible approaches to determining whether a dating relationship exists: (1) Accepting the determination of campus safety officials, (2) using a “reasonable person” standard, or (3) basing the determination on the victim's perspective.
Under the first approach, campus law enforcement or a campus security department would make the determination of whether a dating relationship existed after considering the factors outlined in the statutory definition of dating violence, specifically, the length and type of the relationship, and the frequency of interaction. Several of the negotiators supported this approach because they believed that it would give these officials the authority to make a professional judgment about the nature of the relationship, for purposes of crime reporting. Other negotiators disagreed with this approach, however, arguing that generational differences in terminology and culture (e.g., “going steady,” “seeing each other,” “hooking up,” or “hanging out”) could create situations in which an incident of dating violence would be incorrectly omitted from the crime statistics and the crime log. They noted that, in some cases, the reporting party and the institutional official receiving the report may have different concepts about what constitutes dating.
Under the second approach, an institution would make the determination of whether a dating relationship existed based on whether or not a “reasonable person” would consider the individuals to be dating. Some of the negotiators advocated this approach, arguing that it would reflect a standard that is frequently used in other areas of the law. Several other negotiators strongly disagreed, however, arguing that a reasonable person standard has traditionally reflected a perspective that may not adequately meet the needs of diverse populations of students.
Under the third approach, an institution would make the determination based on whether or not victim considered themselves himself or herself to be in dating relationships. Several of the negotiators supported this approach, arguing that it would be clear and simple. They argued that leaving it to the victim to define the relationship would avoid problems caused by differences in terminology between the victim and campus officials or in the perception of the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator. Other negotiators believed that this was a reasonable approach, but they raised concerns that leaving the determination solely to the victim would not be supportable under the statute, which requires consideration of several factors, namely, the length of the relationship, the type of relationship, and the frequency of interaction.
In the end, the negotiators agreed to a compromise definition that allows both the reporting party and law enforcement to be involved in determining whether a reported crime constitutes an incident of dating violence. Under the proposed definition, an institution would determine whether the individuals were in a dating relationship by considering the reporting party's statement, as well as the other factors included in the statutory definition—the length of the relationship, the type of relationship, and the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship. We believe that this proposed definition appropriately allows institutions to give considerable weight to the view of the victim or, if someone other than the victim reports the incident, to the view of the reporting party, but also allows campus law enforcement or a campus security department flexibility to consider the statutory factors specifically listed in VAWA in deciding whether an incident meets the definition of dating violence.
Next, with regards to the types of behavior that would be considered violence for purposes of this definition, some of the negotiators strongly believed that the definition of “dating violence” should include not only physical and sexual violence but also emotional or psychological abuse. These
Other negotiators believed that the definition of “dating violence” should be limited to physical and sexual abuse. They argued that, from a practical standpoint, it would be difficult for campus law enforcement and other institutional officials to determine whether a report of emotional or psychological abuse meets the standard of “violence,” and accordingly whether or not to include it in the institution's Clery Act statistics. Some of the negotiators also argued that including emotional and psychological abuse in the definition of dating violence would exceed the limits established by statutory language.
In this proposed definition, we have specified that, for the purposes of including incidents of dating violence in an institution's Clery Act statistics, dating violence includes, but is not limited to, sexual or physical abuse or the threat of such abuse. While the Department strongly supports the inclusion of emotional or psychological abuse in definitions of dating violence used for research, prevention, victim services, or intervention purposes, we are not proposing to explicitly include these forms of abuse in this definition for purposes of Clery Act reporting for several reasons. First, the Department recognizes that some instances of emotional and verbal abuse may not rise to the level of “violence” which is a part of the statutory definition of dating violence under VAWA. Second, we acknowledge the implementation challenges that including these forms of abuse in the regulatory definition would present for campus security authorities, including law enforcement for purposes of Clery Act reporting. In particular, the Department recognizes the difficulties that campus security authorities may encounter when attempting to identify incidents of reported emotional or psychological abuse, as these forms of abuse may not be visibly apparent, but instead may require the input of mental health professionals and counselors. We believe that the proposed definition reflects the statutory requirements and strikes a balance between creating a clear, enforceable regulation and allowing institutions to include instances of emotional or psychological abuse where the abuse constitutes a threat of physical or sexual abuse.
Further, some negotiators requested clarification on how institutions should record incidents that meet the definitions of both “dating violence” and “domestic violence” for Clery Act statistical purposes. Specifically, the negotiators noted that, because certain acts of violence by an intimate partner of the victim meet both the definitions of “dating violence” and “domestic violence”, a particular incident could be double-counted where the act is committed by an “intimate partner” and is an act of violence that also constitutes a felony or misdemeanor crime, thus meeting both definitions. To address concerns about the overlap of the definitions of “dating violence” and “domestic violence” and to avoid double-counting, we have proposed to include the language clarifying that for purposes of Clery Act reporting, “dating violence does not include acts covered under the definition of domestic violence.”
Finally, the negotiators requested clarification about how to treat incidents of dating violence in jurisdictions where dating violence is not a crime. During the committee's discussions on this point several negotiators noted the discrepancy between the statutory definitions of “dating violence,” which refers to “violence” and does not require that a crime be committed, and the definition of “domestic violence,” which is defined as “a felony or misdemeanor crime of violence.”
In these proposed regulations we would provide that any incident that meets the definition of “dating violence” is a “crime” for the purposes of the Clery Act. We have included this provision to make it clear that all such incidents would have to be recorded in an institution's statistics, regardless of whether or not dating violence is a crime in the institution's jurisdiction. We also believe this provision improves the readability of the regulations.
Section 304 of VAWA amended section 485(f)(1)(F)(ii) of the HEA to add national origin and gender identity as categories of prejudice that may be identified as the basis for a hate crime.
The committee members discussed the definition of this term, focusing in particular on how to ensure that these programs will reflect the best current thinking on the issues of sexual violence prevention. Several negotiators argued that many institutions use programs and practices that have been shown to be ineffective and that reinforce and perpetuate outdated myths about gender roles and behaviors, among other things. These negotiators believed that the regulations should require institutions to design programs using approaches and strategies that research has proven effective in preventing dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Most of the negotiators agreed that institutions should not implement programs that have been proven ineffective or harmful, but some urged that the term “research” should be given a broad interpretation to include research conducted according to scientific standards as well as assessments for efficacy carried out by institutions and other organizations. After consideration of these arguments, the committee agreed to propose that these prevention programs must be informed by research or assessed for value, effectiveness, or outcome.
Similarly, the negotiators stressed the need to move away from programs that inappropriately place the burden on individuals to protect themselves, instead of focusing on ways to reduce the risk of perpetration. With this in mind, the negotiators agreed to specify that programs to prevent dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking must address environmental factors that increase the risk of violence on numerous levels (i.e., risk factors) and factors that decrease the risk of violence or mitigate the effects of a risk factor (i.e., protective factors).
The negotiators also discussed the need to emphasize that institutions should develop their prevention programs thoughtfully and deliberately, taking into account the particular circumstances of their communities. Generally, the negotiators agreed that it is critical that institutions tailor their programs for their students and employees and their needs.
Please see “Programs to Prevent Dating Violence, Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking (§ 668.46(j))” for additional discussion of programs to prevent dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
First, the subcommittee suggested that the Department adopt the definition of “course of conduct” from the Model Stalking Code which is “two or more acts, including, but not limited to, acts in which the stalker directly, indirectly, or through third parties, by any action, method, device, or means, follows, monitors, observes, surveils, threatens, or communicates to or about, a person, or interferes with a person's property.” The full committee accepted this suggestion because this comprehensive description appropriately covers the wide range of behaviors that a perpetrator might exhibit when stalking a victim. In particular, the committee agreed that this definition would appropriately include means of stalking that are particularly troubling on college campuses, such as cyberstalking and the public distribution (e.g., online) of materials of a personal or intimate nature about a victim to humiliate, degrade, or expose the victim. While the committee initially discussed developing a special rule to address cyberstalking, the negotiators representing law enforcement and members of the subcommittee from the Stalking Resource Center strongly recommended against doing so, noting that cyberstalking is simply one form of stalking and is typically treated under the law the same way as any other stalking course of conduct, and that stalking someone through electronic means is frequently intertwined with other forms of stalking.
Second, the subcommittee suggested adding clarifying language to explain the phrase “substantial emotional distress.” In particular, the subcommittee suggested defining “emotional distress” similarly to the Model Stalking Code, which defines the term to mean “significant mental suffering or distress that may, but does not necessarily, require medical or other professional treatment or counseling.” Because the Model Stalking Code uses the term “significant” in defining “emotional distress” the Committee was satisfied with adopting that language to define “substantial emotional distress” in the proposed regulations.
Third, the subcommittee discussed the phrase “would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety or the safety of others.” In particular, the subcommittee noted that the definition of stalking does not require a victim to actually suffer substantial emotional distress, but instead only that the course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer distress. Further, the subcommittee suggested that the Department adopt the Model Stalking Code's definition of a “reasonable person” to mean “a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances.” The Department did not initially incorporate this definition of “reasonable person” in the draft regulations presented to the negotiators during the second session because the term “reasonable person” is generally understood and we were not convinced that further elaboration was needed. Some of the negotiators agreed that the “reasonable person” standard is a concept used in law and in a number of situations over hundreds of years and that trying to nuance it to fit a particular set of circumstances would weaken the generality and adaptability of the standard. Other negotiators, however, argued that a reasonable person, for Clery Act purposes, should be defined in a way that would speak to the identities and experiences of all members of the campus community. Ultimately, the committee agreed to define the term “reasonable person” within the definition of stalking to mean a reasonable person under similar circumstances and with similar identities to the victim. The negotiators felt that this definition would produce the best outcomes in terms of ensuring that the perspective from which an institution evaluates a report of stalking reflects the experience of the victim.
Finally, as with dating violence and domestic violence, the proposed regulations provide that any incident that meets the definition of stalking would be considered a “crime” for the purposes of the Clery Act. We have included this provision to make it clear that all such incidents would have to be recorded in an institution's statistics and to improve the readability of the regulations.
Additionally, we are proposing to add the words “and jurisdiction” in § 668.46(b)(4)(i) to make it explicit that institutions must include information about jurisdiction when addressing the enforcement authority of campus law enforcement. We believe that this will provide the campus community with a better understanding of the physical locations in which campus law enforcement will patrol or otherwise carry out its duties.
Additionally, some of the negotiators suggested going a step further by defining “unable to report” to mean that a victim is physically unable to make a report, such as when the victim is in a coma. They felt that this would address the situation in which a member of the campus community would report a crime against the victim's wishes after deciding that the victim was psychologically unable to make a report out of fear or coercion. Other negotiators, while agreeing that it is important to empower victims to make these decisions for themselves, opposed adding “physically” as a qualifier because they believed that it would be interpreted to exclude situations where a victim is mentally incapacitated and unable to make a report.
Ultimately, in considering these concerns, the negotiated rulemaking committee agreed to incorporate the statutory language into the regulations, with the slight modification of adding the word “to” in the phrase “elects to or is unable to report,” for clarity, to emphasize that, for the purposes of reporting crimes to the campus police and the appropriate police agencies, institutions must encourage accurate and prompt reporting of all crimes when the victim of the crime elects to report the crime or when the victim is unable to make a report.
We believe that it is important for institutions to encourage members of the campus community to report crimes to campus security authorities to ensure that all crimes are included in the institution's Clery Act statistics. Our longstanding policy is that institutions must record reports of the Clery Act crimes in their statistics, regardless of whether the report comes from the victim or a third party. On the other hand, we understand that, particularly at institutions with sworn police officers, the same individuals or departments may be responsible for compiling the institution's Clery Act statistics and for initiating title IX investigations or pursuing criminal charges. To address these concerns, in the Handbook we will encourage institutions to emphasize and make clear to students and employees what opportunities exist for making confidential reports of crimes for inclusion in the institution's Clery Act statistics, for filing a title IX complaint at the institution, and for obtaining counseling or treatment without initiating a title IX investigation or criminal investigation.
Please see the discussions under “Preserving Evidence, Reporting Offenses to Law Enforcement and Campus Authorities, and Protection Orders,” “Confidentiality of Victims,” “Notification of Assistance and Services,” “Notification of Accommodations,” “Written Statement of Rights and Options,” “Programs to Prevent Dating Violence, Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking,” and “Institutional Disciplinary Proceedings in Cases of Alleged Dating Violence, Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking” for detailed descriptions of the changes and additions we are proposing in paragraphs (b)(11)(ii), (iii), (iv), (v), and (vii) and in paragraphs (j) and (k) of § 668.46.
We are also proposing to replace current paragraph (b)(11)(i) with a cross-reference to proposed new paragraph (j), and current paragraphs (b)(11)(vi) and (vii) with a cross-reference to proposed new paragraph (k), to streamline paragraph (b)(11) and help institutions and the public better understand and follow these regulations. This is the same approach we took when implementing changes that the HEOA made to the Clery Act in 2008 of using cross-references to direct readers to later paragraphs for information pertaining to policy statements on missing student notification and emergency response and evacuation procedures.
In proposed § 668.46(b)(11)(ii)(A), which modifies current § 668.46(b)(11)(ii), we would specify that institutions must include as part of these procedures information about the importance of preserving evidence that may assist in proving that the alleged criminal offense occurred or may be helpful in obtaining a protection order.
In proposed § 668.46(b)(11)(ii)(B), which modifies current § 668.46(b)(11)(ii), we would clarify that, in disclosing to victims to whom they should report an alleged offense, institutions must specify how a victim should make that report.
In proposed § 668.46(b)(11)(ii)(C), which modifies current § 668.46(b)(11)(ii), we would add that institutions must inform victims not only of their options to notify proper law enforcement authorities, including on-campus and local police, and to be assisted by campus authorities in doing so, but also of their option to decline to notify such authorities.
Finally, we would add § 668.46(b)(11)(ii)(D) to provide that institutions must inform victims of their rights and, where applicable, the institution's responsibilities for orders of protection, no-contact orders, restraining orders, or similar lawful orders issued by a criminal, civil, or tribal court or by the institution.
First, we are proposing in § 668.46(b)(11)(ii)(B) to clarify that institutions must include information about how a victim should report an alleged offense of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Many negotiators indicated that victims often are unaware of the processes they must follow to report one of these offenses. The negotiators agreed that, in addition to knowing who to notify, it would be helpful for victims to have information in an institution's annual security report about any processes in place for notifying the appropriate officials.
Second, we are proposing in § 668.46(b)(11)(ii)(D) to specify that institutions must address in its statement of policy in the annual security report victims' rights and the institution's responsibilities for enforcing orders of protection, no- contact orders, restraining orders, or similar lawful orders issued by courts and by the institution. Some of the negotiators felt strongly that victims should be informed of the types of orders that an institution may impose to protect a victim after an allegation of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. During the discussions, a few of the negotiators asked the Department to clarify what an institution's responsibility would be to enforce orders of protection or similar orders issued by a court. Institutions are responsible for understanding their legal responsibilities based on the circumstances of a particular order. The Department is not in a position to provide guidance to institutions on individual protection orders.
• § 668.46(c)(1) requires institutions to report the following incidents that are reported to local police agencies or to a campus security authority: criminal homicide (including murder and nonnegligent manslaughter and negligent manslaughter), sex offenses (including forcible and nonforcible sex offenses), robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, arson, and arrests and referrals for disciplinary action for liquor law violations, drug law violations, and illegal weapons possession.
• § 668.46(c)(3) requires institutions to report to the Department, by category of prejudice, any of the crimes reported to local police agencies or to a campus security authority under paragraph (c)(1), the crimes of larceny-theft, simple assault, intimidation, and destruction, damage, and vandalism of property, and any other crimes involving bodily injury, that manifest evidence that the victim was intentionally selected because of the victim's actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability.
In defining the crimes that must be included in the statistics on sex offenses, the Department has historically used the definitions of sex offenses in the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) Edition of the FBI's UCR program. Under that approach, the Department has collected statistics for crimes that meet the definitions in NIBRS for four types of forcible sex offenses—forcible rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, and forcible fondling—and two nonforcible sex offenses—incest and statutory rape.
Second, we propose to require institutions to report and disclose instances of rape, fondling, incest, and statutory rape. Specifically, we would revise the definition of “rape” in Appendix A to reflect the FBI's recently updated definition in the UCR Summary Reporting System (SRS), which incorporates the NIBRS categories of rape, sodomy, and sexual assault with
• Sex Offenses (from NIBRS): Any sexual act directed against another person without the consent of the victim, including instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent.
• Rape (from SRS): The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.
• Fondling (from NIBRS): The touching of the private body parts of another person for the purpose of sexual gratification, without the consent of the victim, including instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her age or because of his/her temporary or permanent mental incapacity.
• Incest (from NIBRS): Nonforcible sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by law.
• Statutory Rape (from NIBRS): Nonforcible sexual intercourse with a person who is under the statutory age of consent.
Finally, we propose to restructure the paragraph by consolidating all of the reportable Clery Act crimes under § 668.46(c)(1). Under this proposed structure, we would: group the primary crimes of criminal homicide (including murder and nonnegligent manslaughter and negligent manslaughter), sex offenses (rape, fondling, incest, and statutory rape), robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and arson under § 668.46(c)(1)(i); move arrests and disciplinary actions for liquor law violations, drug law violations, and illegal weapons possession to § 668.46(c)(1)(ii); move the reportable hate crimes to § 668.46(c)(1)(iii); and add the crimes added by VAWA in § 668.46(c)(1)(iv).
We remain concerned that the approach for reporting and disclosing the number of incidents of dating violence, domestic violence and stalking in these proposed regulations will not capture critical information about the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. We believe it would be helpful for prevention and research purposes for the Clery Act statistics to reflect whether the victim was murdered by a spouse or other intimate partner. We invite comment on whether the approach in these proposed regulations should be modified to require institutions to identify the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim for some or all of the Clery Act crimes.
We are also proposing these changes to reflect updates to the FBI's UCR program definitions. The FBI has moved away from terminology characterizing sex offenses as “forcible” or “nonforcible” to combat the suggestion that a sex offense has not occurred if physical force was not involved. Accordingly, we propose to remove the term “forcible” from the definitions in part 668. Additionally, under the proposed regulations, institutions would record any crime that meets the NIBRS definition of rape, sodomy, or sexual assault as a “rape” in their annual statistics. Historically, we have used the definitions in the NIBRS Edition of the UCR program because the definitions were more inclusive with respect to who could be a victim and what types of crimes would be considered than in the SRS. However, the FBI recently modernized the definition of “rape” in the SRS to
Lastly, we are proposing to restructure paragraph (c) to improve the clarity of the regulations. First, we would add the term “primary crimes” in paragraph (c)(1) in order to provide a standard, simple way to refer to criminal homicide, sex offenses, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and arson as a group. Law enforcement officials often refer to these as “part 1” crimes, while other individuals refer to these as “Clery crimes” or “main crimes.” We believe that providing a label for this group of crimes will make it easier for the Department to describe and explain these regulations to the public. Second, we would create a subparagraph specifically containing arrests and referrals for disciplinary action. We believe that this change will make it clearer to readers that this category is distinct from the primary crimes. We are also proposing to restructure the regulations to make it explicitly clear that arrests and referrals for disciplinary action are a distinct category of Clery Act crimes from the primary crimes. Third, we are proposing to create a subparagraph specifically containing the hate crimes that are reportable under the Clery Act, which would incorporate the primary crimes and the four additional crimes added by the HEOA. Lastly, we would create paragraph (c)(1)(iv) containing the crimes of dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking added by VAWA. We believe that the proposed structure clarifies that there are four categories of Clery Act crimes and makes it clear that the Hierarchy Rule only applies to the primary crimes.
Second, proposed § 668.46(c)(3), which modifies current § 668.46(c)(2) (“Recording crimes”), would clarify that a reported crime is included in the statistics for the calendar year in which the crime was reported to local police agencies or to a campus security authority and would direct readers to proposed § 668.46(c)(6) for information about the regulations for recording stalking by calendar year.
We would also direct readers to proposed § 668.46(c)(6) for information about recording stalking by location.
Finally, we propose to revise, renumber, and expand current § 668.46(c)(3) (“Reported crimes if a hate crime”). As noted earlier, we propose to add a definition of “hate crime” in § 668.46(a) and to remove the language describing a hate crime from § 668.46(c)(3). We also propose to expand the categories of bias in § 668.46(c)(4)(iii) and (vii) to include “gender identity” and “national origin” to reflect the addition of these categories by VAWA.
We are proposing to add cross-references in paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) and (c)(5)(iii) to the regulations for recording stalking by calendar year and location to implement changes that VAWA made to the HEA. Please see the discussions under “Recording Stalking” for more information.
Lastly, we are proposing to restructure paragraph (c) to make the regulations easier to understand. We believe that using subparagraph titles that more readily convey what each provision addresses and that minimizing confusing cross-references will help the public better understand and comply with these regulations.
We are proposing to add “gender identity” and “national origin” to the list of categories of bias that apply for the purposes of hate crime reporting in paragraph (c)(4) in order to implement changes that VAWA made to the HEA.
Additionally, as described under the Recording Crimes Reported to a Campus Security Authority section, we would add cross-references to this provision in proposed §§ 668.46(c)(3) and (c)(5) to direct readers to additional information pertaining to recording reports of stalking.
For example, under both the current and the proposed regulations, an institution would typically record a statistic for a crime in the calendar year in which the crime occurred. With stalking, however, a pattern of behavior sometimes spans multiple weeks or months, and a pattern that begins in one calendar year may continue into another calendar year. Similarly, under both the current and proposed regulations, an institution would typically specify whether a crime occurred on campus (and, if so, whether it occurred in a dormitory or other student housing facility on campus), in or on a noncampus building or property, or on public property. With stalking, this rule does not always apply clearly. A perpetrator could engage in a single type of behavior or a variety of behaviors in multiple parts of the institution's Clery Geography. Alternatively, the perpetrator could initiate stalking behavior in one part of the institution's Clery Geography and the victim could become aware of that behavior while on another part of the institution's Clery Geography. For instance, the perpetrator could send the victim a menacing text message while on campus, and the victim could receive that text message while walking on a public sidewalk across the street from the campus. Additionally, stalking poses challenges for identifying when one pattern has ended and another one has begun. For instance, a perpetrator might stalk a victim intensively over the course of two days, cease the behavior for a week, and then begin the stalking behavior again.
The negotiators discussed these various challenges and how to best operationalize the new requirement in the HEA to collect statistics on stalking. First, some of the negotiators believed that stalking that includes activities in more than one calendar year should generally be included only in the statistics for the calendar year in which a local police agency or campus security authority first learns of the behaviors. While many negotiators agreed that this would be a reasonable approach, some believed that stalking that continues into subsequent calendar years should be included in the statistics for each year. These negotiators argued that this approach would be more appropriate because including stalking in only one year could artificially deflate the numbers of reported crimes. These negotiators said that while it would not be appropriate to include a separate report for each behavior within a course of conduct, at least including a statistic in each year in which the stalking occurs would provide a fuller picture of the stalking occurring on campus. Ultimately, the negotiating committee agreed to the approach reflected in these proposed regulations. Under the proposed regulations, stalking would be counted only in the first calendar year in which it is reported unless it continues into a new calendar year. For example, if a victim reports stalking to local police or a campus security authority in December 2014 and another report is made in February 2015, the institution would record the stalking in both calendar years 2014 and 2015. Although the committee reached consensus on this language, the Department is concerned that these proposed regulations are not clear and we request comment specifically on the issue of how to count stalking that crosses calendar years.
Second, the negotiators discussed how to address issues related to the location of the stalking and how to determine when a pattern of behavior becomes reportable for Clery Act purposes. Some of the negotiators suggested that, for the purposes of counting reports of stalking, the Department should expand beyond the traditional physical locations that make up an institution's reportable areas (i.e., on campus, noncampus buildings or
The negotiators also discussed how an institution should record stalking in terms of location for Clery reporting purposes. Generally, the negotiators felt that it was clear that if a stalking course of conduct appeared to have occurred in only one Clery Geography location (for example, the conduct occurred only on campus) then the crime would be included in the statistics for that area. However, some negotiators questioned how an institution should categorize a report of stalking that touches multiple reportable locations (for example, both on campus and public property). Along these lines, the negotiators considered how institutions should record the location of a report of stalking if both the perpetrator and the victim were in reportable, but different, locations.
After discussing these issues, the negotiators reached consensus on the approach reflected in proposed § 668.46(c)(6)(ii), which would require an institution to record each report of stalking as occurring in the first location in which either the perpetrator engaged in the stalking course of conduct, or the victim first became aware of the stalking. If a stalker uses institutional computer networks, servers, or other such electronic means to stalk a victim, the electronic stalking behavior would be reportable
Third, the negotiators considered how to determine when one stalking course of conduct ends and another stalking course of conduct begins, particularly when the stalking involves the same victim and perpetrator. The committee discussed two main approaches—counting a report of stalking as a separate crime either after an official intervention or once a specified period of time has elapsed. The negotiators offered a variety of ways to define “official intervention.” Some suggested defining official intervention to mean that someone at the institution with authority to take preventive action to stop the behavior notifies the perpetrator to cease the conduct, while others suggested that a victim's request to the perpetrator to cease the conduct would be sufficient. Other negotiators believed that official intervention should include protection orders or restraining orders issued by a court. In considering these approaches, however, the negotiators and members of the public raised a variety of concerns, including that institutions might avoid intervening to avoid the risk of having to include another count of stalking in their statistics if the perpetrator re-offended after the intervention; that requiring a victim to contact their stalker to notify them to stop the behavior could cause a rapid escalation in violence; and that the means of intervention should be flexible to accommodate the ways in which a victim might prefer to handle a situation.
As one approach to this issue, the negotiators discussed the possibility that an institution should record a new incident of stalking after a significant amount of time passes between stalking behaviors. Along these lines, some of the negotiators recommended specifying a bright-line period of time, such as two weeks or three months, after which an institution would record another instance of stalking in its statistics if the course of conduct continued. Other negotiators supported leaving a more flexible standard of “significant amount of time” or otherwise not specifying a standard period because they felt that some cases might be better evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Along these lines, some of the negotiators argued that any standard interval of time would be arbitrary and would not be able to accommodate all of the various patterns of stalking in a way that would produce an accurate report of the number of stalking crimes at a particular institution.
Ultimately, the negotiators agreed to the approach reflected in these proposed regulations. Under these regulations, a stalking course of conduct would be recorded as a new crime for Clery Act statistical reports after an official intervention. “Official intervention” would be defined broadly to include formal and informal interventions and those initiated by institutional officials or a court. The proposed regulations do not include a specific time period as a way of marking the end of one incident of stalking and the start of another because any time frame would be arbitrary. The Department is particularly interested in feedback as to whether there are other ways to address this issue, and we invite comment on this.
Lastly, the negotiators discussed how to count incidents of stalking when two campuses are involved; that is, when the victim is on one institution's reportable locations and the perpetrator is on another institution's reportable locations. Some negotiators expressed concern that, if both campuses reported the crime, the result would be a “double-report” of the same incident. However, other negotiators noted that the main issue is not overreporting but underreporting and that it is important to reflect the crime in the statistics for each campus at which the stalking behavior or results occur. Under proposed § 668.46(c)(2), an institution would be required to include all reported crimes in its statistics. In applying this rule, if stalking were reported to a campus security authority at more than one campus, both institutions would have to include the stalking report in their Clery Act crime statistics.
Second, we believe that explicitly referring to the Hierarchy Rule in the regulations will improve the clarity of the regulations. Including this requirement in the regulations will help institutions understand how to compile their statistics. Further, we believe that defining the term “Hierarchy Rule” and specifying in the regulations how it applies will help members of the public to better understand the Clery Act requirements and statistics.
We agree with the negotiators that it is critical to protect a victim's confidentiality to the extent possible; however, the safety of the campus community must also be a priority. We believe that, in most cases, institutions will be able to provide a timely warning without including information that will identify the victim.
We are proposing to adopt the definition of “personally identifying information or personal information” in section 40002(a)(20) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a)(20)). That definition refers to identifying information for or about an individual including information likely to disclose the location of a victim of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, regardless of whether the information is encoded, encrypted, hashed, or otherwise protected, including: (1) A first and last name; (2) a home or other physical address; (3) contact information (including a postal, email or Internet protocol address, or telephone or facsimile number); (4) a social security number, driver license number, passport number, or student identification number; and (5) any other information, including date of birth, racial or ethnic background, or religious affiliation, that would serve to identify the individual.
We acknowledge that, to provide an effective timely warning in some instances, an institution will have to provide information about the location of a crime or, in response to a hate crime, other information such as a victim's racial or ethnic background or religious affiliation. In these cases, we stress that institutions should carefully consider the content of their timely warnings and protect the confidentiality of the victim to the extent possible while balancing the need to ensure the safety of the campus community.
Under new section 485(f)(8)(B)(i)(I) of the HEA, an institution's primary prevention and awareness programs for all incoming students and new employees must include:
• A statement that the institution of higher education prohibits the offenses of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking;
• The definition of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking in the applicable jurisdiction;
• The definition of consent, in reference to sexual activity, in the applicable jurisdiction;
• Safe and positive options for bystander intervention that may be carried out by an individual to prevent harm or intervene when there is a risk of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking against a person other than that individual;
• Information on risk reduction to recognize warning signs of abusive behavior and how to avoid potential attacks; and
• The information in HEA sections 485(f)(8)(B)(ii) through (vii) regarding: Possible sanctions or protective measures that an institution may impose following a final determination of an institutional disciplinary procedure; procedures victims should follow if a sex offense, dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking occurs (see the discussion under “Annual Security Report” for full details on this subject); where applicable, the rights of victims and the institution's responsibilities regarding orders of protection, no-contact orders, restraining orders, or similar lawful orders issued by a criminal, civil, or tribal court; procedures for institutional disciplinary action in cases of alleged dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking (see the discussion under “Institutional Disciplinary Proceedings in Cases of Alleged Dating Violence, Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking” for full details on this subject); information about how the institution will protect the confidentiality of victims, including how publicly available recordkeeping will be accomplished without the inclusion of identifying information about the victim; written notification of students and employees about existing counseling, health, mental health, victim advocacy, legal assistance, and other services available for victims both on-campus and in the community; and written notification of victims about options for, and available assistance in, changing academic, living, transportation, and working situations, if requested by the victim and if such accommodations are reasonably available, regardless of whether the victim chooses to report the crime to campus policy or local law enforcement.
Under new section 485(f)(8)(B)(i)(II) of the HEA, an institution's ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns for students and faculty must include the same information covered by the institution's primary prevention and awareness programs for all incoming students and new employees.
Proposed § 668.46(j)(1) would specify the items that must be included in the statement of policy, and proposed § 668.46(j)(2) would define the terms used in the requirements for the statement of policy, discussed below under “Statement of Policy Requirements in Proposed § 668.46(j)(1)” and “Definitions of Terms in Proposed § 668.46(j)(2),” respectively. Proposed § 668.46(j)(3) would specify that an institution's programs to prevent dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking must include, at a minimum, the information described in paragraph (j)(1).
Under proposed § 668.46(j)(1)(i)(A) through (j)(1)(i)(F), the statement must include a description of the institution's primary prevention and awareness programs for all incoming students and new employees, which in turn must include a statement that the institution prohibits the crimes of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking; the definition of “dating violence,” “domestic violence,” “sexual assault,” and “stalking” in the applicable jurisdiction; the definition of “consent,” in reference to sexual activity, in the applicable jurisdiction; a description of safe and positive options for bystander intervention; information on risk reduction; and the information described in § 668.46(b)(11) and (k)(2) of these proposed regulations. The information in proposed § 668.46(b)(11) consists of a statement of policy regarding the institution's programs to prevent dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking and the procedures that the institution will follow when one of these crimes is reported. The information in proposed § 668.46(k)(2) consists of a statement of policy that addresses procedures for institutional disciplinary action in cases of alleged dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.
Under proposed § 668.46(j)(1)(ii), the statement of policy must also describe the institution's ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns for students and employees, which must include the information described in paragraphs (j)(1)(i)(A) through (j)(1)(i)(F) of the proposed regulations.
Proposed § 668.46(j)(2) would define the terms “awareness programs”, “bystander intervention”, “ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns”, “primary prevention programs”, and “risk reduction.”
Under proposed § 668.46(j)(2)(i), the term “awareness programs” is defined to mean community-wide or audience-specific programming, initiatives, and strategies that increase audience knowledge and share information and resources to prevent violence, promote safety, and reduce perpetration.
Proposed § 668.46(j)(2)(ii) would define the term “bystander intervention” to mean safe and positive options that may be carried out by an individual or individuals to prevent harm or intervene when there is a risk
Proposed § 668.46(j)(2)(iii) would define the term “ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns” to mean programming, initiatives, and strategies that are sustained over time and focus on increasing understanding of topics relevant to, and skills for addressing, dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, using a range of strategies with audiences throughout the institution and including information described in paragraph proposed §§ 668.46(j)(1)(i)(A) through (j)(1)(i)(F).
Proposed § 668.46(j)(2)(iv) would define the term “primary prevention programs” to mean programming, initiatives, and strategies informed by research or assessed for value, effectiveness, or outcome that are intended to stop dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking before they occur through the promotion of positive and healthy behaviors that foster healthy, mutually respectful relationships and sexuality, encourage safe bystander intervention, and seek to change behavior and social norms in healthy and safe directions.
Under proposed § 668.46(j)(2)(v), the term “risk reduction” means options designed to decrease perpetration and bystander inaction and to increase empowerment for victims to promote safety and to help individuals and communities address conditions that facilitate violence.
First, the negotiators discussed several practical questions with respect to the target audiences for these programs, whether these programs would be mandatory, and whether institutions could offer these programs through computer-based training modules. Noting that the statute requires institutions to provide primary prevention and awareness programs for incoming students and new employees, and ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns to students and faculty, the negotiators suggested clarifying who would be considered a “student” or an “employee”. Several negotiators also wondered if institutions were expected to provide prevention and awareness programs to distance education students and short-term, continuing education students. Some negotiators in particular were concerned that mandating this training for all students could pose a significant burden for institutions like community colleges, where many students take only non-credit courses and may be on campus only once for a single four-hour class. Along these lines, some negotiators were concerned that it would be very difficult to ensure that all students, including distance education students, have received training, particularly if the training had to be offered in person. From a victim's perspective, one negotiator suggested that the programs should be available—but not mandatory—because the programs could be traumatizing for some victims.
On the other hand, some negotiators believed strongly that every student, regardless of whether they are taking a class for credit, should be required to complete training, arguing that this type of training is critical because it focuses on violence that can destroy lives. They believed that these programs can be designed in a way that avoids re-traumatization, and that it can support victims and non-victims by educating them about what is a crime and what rights and options exist. They further argued that anyone can be a victim of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, even if they are on campus briefly only one time, and that it would still be important for those individuals to know what rights and options they have and what procedures to follow with respect to these crimes, as outlined in the statute.
In addressing these concerns, the Department decided to interpret the statute consistent with other Clery Act requirements by requiring institutions to offer these types of training to “enrolled” students. Under §§ 668.41 and 668.46, institutions must distribute the annual security report to all enrolled students. Applying that same approach here would make it clear that the same students who must receive the annual security report must also be offered the training. The Department's regulations in 34 CFR § 668.2 define “enrolled” to mean a student who (1) has completed the registration requirements (except for the payment of tuition and fees) at the institution that he or she is attending; or (2) has been admitted into an educational program offered predominantly by correspondence and has submitted one lesson, completed by him or her after acceptance for enrollment and without the help of a representative of the institution. The negotiators agreed with this approach.
In response to the discussion during the first negotiation session, the Department initially agreed to consider developing a definition of “employee” to clarify which individuals working for the institution would need to be offered training. However, we subsequently decided not to propose a definition of employee for several reasons. First, we note that institutions have had to distribute their annual security reports to their current employees under §§ 668.41 and 668.46 for many years, and we have not previously defined the term for those purposes. Therefore, institutions should know who they consider to be an employee for the purposes of the Clery Act, and we expect that these employees will now be offered the new training required by the HEA. Second, given the wide variety in arrangements and circumstances in place across institutions for providing services to students, other employees, and the public, we believe that institutions are best positioned to determine who is an “employee.” With regards to the requirement that institutions provide ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns to students and faculty, the negotiators generally agreed that the term “faculty” should be considered equivalent to “employee.” The proposed regulations in § 668.46(j)(1)(ii) reflect this recommendation.
The Department also noted that, while the statute requires institutions to describe the programs focused on prevention and awareness of rape, acquaintance rape, dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking in their annual security reports, it does not require that institutions require every student and employee to take the training. We note, however, that institutions may adopt policies requiring that all students and employees take this training, for example, before completing registration.
With regard to the means of providing training, the negotiators ultimately agreed that programs to prevent dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking could be delivered electronically so the programs are able
Second, the negotiators urged the Department to clarify several of the terms used in the statute, including “primary prevention,” “bystander intervention,” and “risk reduction.” The subcommittee focused much of its work on defining these terms, drawing heavily on the work and definitions of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Many of the negotiators supported the first set of suggestions that the subcommittee offered at the second negotiating session. They suggested that the regulations require institutions to adopt programs that reflect best practices and methods that have proven effective for the prevention of gender violence. Others, however, were concerned that the subcommittee's proposals were more prescriptive than would be useful given the variety and size of institutions across the country. Some of the negotiators also believed that making the definitions simple and clear would help individuals and institutions better understand, and subsequently comply with, the regulations.
The subcommittee continued to meet between the second and third sessions, and the draft that the Department provided to the committee at the start of the third session incorporated the subcommittee's revisions. Generally, the revised proposal more closely tracked the statutory language and added a definition of “programs to prevent dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking” to § 668.46(a), as discussed under the Definitions section. The committee generally accepted the revised draft, though some changes were made to the language to address concerns raised by some of the negotiators. We note that, while the draft regulations generally restate the statutory language, institutions are free to go beyond these requirements, for example to include bystander intervention training on a variety of topics, such as alcohol and drug use, hazing, bullying, and other behaviors. We also note that institutions would not be required to provide bystander training separately on each crime of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking and that they may provide training that focuses on all four crimes -- or more -- as part of a more comprehensive program.
With regards to proposed § 668.46(j)(3), we are adding this provision in order to make it clear that an institution's “programs to prevent dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking,” which under our proposed definition in § 668.46(a) would include primary prevention and awareness programs and ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns, must include the information described in proposed paragraph (j)(1).
Proposed § 668.46(k)(1)(i) provides that the statement of policy must describe each type of disciplinary proceeding used by the institution, including the steps, anticipated timelines, and decision-making process for each, and how the institution determines which type of disciplinary hearing to use. Proposed § 668.46(k)(1)(ii) provides that the statement of policy must describe the standard of evidence that will be used during any disciplinary proceeding involving alleged dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. Proposed § 668.46(k)(1)(iii) provides that the statement of policy must list all possible sanctions an institution may impose following the results of any disciplinary proceeding in cases of alleged dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. Proposed § 668.46(k)(1)(iv)
An institution's statement of policy must provide that its disciplinary proceeding will include a prompt, fair, and impartial process from the initial investigation to the final result under proposed § 668.46(k)(2)(i). The policy statement must provide that the proceeding will be conducted by officials who receive annual training on the issues related to dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking and annual training on how to conduct an investigation and hearing process that protects the safety of victims and promotes accountability under proposed § 668.46(k)(2)(ii). Under proposed § 668.46(k)(2)(iii), an institution's statement of policy must provide that its disciplinary proceeding will afford the accuser and the accused the same opportunities to have others present during an institutional disciplinary proceeding, including the opportunity to be accompanied to any related meeting or proceeding by an advisor of their choice. Under proposed § 668.46(k)(2)(iv), an institution cannot limit the accuser's or accused's choice of an advisor or the advisor's presence at a proceeding, but the institution may establish restrictions regarding the advisor's participation in the proceedings as long as those restrictions are applied equally to both the accuser and the accused. Finally, under proposed § 668.46(k)(2)(v), an institution's statement of policy must require simultaneous notification, in writing, to both the accuser and the accused of the result of the institutional disciplinary proceeding, the institution's procedures for the accused and the victim to appeal the result, any change to the result, and when such results become final.
Proposed § 668.46(k)(3) defines the terms “prompt, fair, and impartial proceeding,” “advisor,” “proceeding,” and “result.” Under proposed § 668.46(k)(3)(i), a “prompt, fair, and impartial proceeding” includes a proceeding that is: (1) Completed within reasonably prompt timeframes designated by an institution's policy, including a process that allows for the extension of timeframes for good cause with written notice to the accuser and the accused of the delay and the reason for the delay; (2) conducted in a manner that is consistent with the institution's policies and transparent to the accuser and accused, includes timely notice of meetings at which the accuser or accused, or both, may be present, and provides timely access to the accuser, the accused, and appropriate officials to any information that will be used after the fact-finding investigation but during informal and formal disciplinary meetings and hearings; and (3) conducted by officials who do not have a conflict of interest or bias for or against the accuser or the accused.
Under proposed § 668.46(k)(3)(ii), the term “advisor” is defined as any individual who provides the accuser or the accused support, guidance, or advice.
Under proposed § 668.46(k)(3)(iii), the term “proceeding” means all activities related to a non-criminal resolution of an institutional disciplinary complaint, including, but not limited to, fact-finding investigations, formal or informal meetings, and hearings.
Finally, under proposed § 668.46(k)(3)(iv), the term “result” means any initial, interim, and final decision by any official or entity authorized to resolve disciplinary matters within the institution. The definition provides that the “result” must include any sanctions imposed by the institution and, notwithstanding FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g), the rationale for the result and the sanctions. Having defined the term “result,” for consistency purposes the proposed regulations would also insert the word “result” where appropriate to replace the existing statutory and regulatory references to the terms “outcomes,” “resolution,” and “final determinations.”.
Proposed § 668.46(k)(3) defines the terms “prompt, fair, and impartial proceeding,” “advisor,” “proceeding,” and “result.”
At the first session of negotiated rulemaking, several of the non-Federal negotiators asked that the Department define a “prompt, fair, and impartial” disciplinary proceeding in proposed § 668.46(k). These negotiators requested that the Department consider including, as part of the definition, a provision that requires an institution's disciplinary proceeding to mirror OCR's title IX guidance, especially as that guidance relates to the use of the preponderance of the evidence standard in disciplinary proceedings used to resolve a title IX complaint. Other non-Federal negotiators suggested that VAWA was not intended to codify the required use of the preponderance of the evidence standard, but instead required only that an institution state the standard of evidence that will be used.
In response to this request by non-Federal negotiators, the Department introduced proposed language defining the term “prompt, fair and impartial disciplinary proceeding” to mean a proceeding that is completed within the timeframe designated by an institution's policy and without undue delay; conducted in a manner that is consistent with the institution's policies and transparent to all parties; conducted by officials who do not have a real or perceived conflict of interest or bias for or against the accused or the accuser; and, at the request of non-Federal negotiators, at a minimum, comply with guidance issued by OCR. One non-Federal negotiator suggested that the Department eliminate the reference to a “real or perceived” conflict of interest because the terms “real or perceived” are too subjective and would be difficult to operationalize at a small campus. Several non-Federal negotiators suggested using the standard of actual or potential conflict of interest instead.
With regard to the requirement that a disciplinary hearing comply at a minimum with guidance issued by OCR, some non-Federal negotiators strongly supported the provision, while others were strongly opposed to including this provision. Those arguing against the inclusion of this provision stated that, in enacting VAWA, Congress did not require institutions to use the preponderance of the evidence standard under the Clery Act, but only required that an institution disclose what standard of evidence it would use at a disciplinary proceeding for conduct covered by the Clery Act. Still others were not comfortable with including in these proposed Clery Act regulations a reference to guidance issued by OCR under other laws and regulations. It was suggested that we cite the statutory language amending the Clery Act instead. One non-Federal negotiator voiced her view that title IX is largely interpreted judicially or by the Department, and that whether or not a provision requiring compliance with title IX in disciplinary hearings mandated under the HEA is included in the Clery Act regulations does not change title IX requirements. This view
At the last session of negotiations, the Department presented amended draft language in § 668.46(k)(3)(i) defining a “prompt, fair and impartial proceeding” to include a proceeding that is completed within a reasonable timeframe designated by the institution's policy and without undue delay, and that is conducted in a manner that: (1) Is consistent with the institution's policies and transparent to the accuser and accused; (2) includes timely notice to the accuser and accused of all meetings relevant to the proceeding; and (3) provides timely access to both the accuser and the accused to any information that will be used during the proceeding. These changes were met with general agreement from the non-Federal negotiators although several changes to the specific language were requested. The committee agreed to revise the regulations to permit an institution to exceed the timeframe in its policy for good cause with written notice to the accuser and the accused of the delay and the reason for the delay. This language was added in recognition that some delays are unavoidable. The proposed requirement for written notice of the delay and the reasons for the delay, however, is appropriate to ensure a fair proceeding. The Department also notes that, as it relates to § 668.46(k)(3)(i)(B)(
At the third session, the negotiators continued to debate the Department's draft language requiring an institution's disciplinary proceedings to be conducted by officials who do not have a real or perceived conflict of interest or bias, for or against, the accuser or the accused. The committee decided to modify this language slightly by removing the words “real or perceived,” as reflected in proposed § 668.46(k)(3)(i)(C); thus, the revised language addresses only those officials with an actual conflict of interest or bias. The concerns that a perceived conflict of interest may limit the officials who can conduct such hearings on small campuses or that some parties in a proceeding might abuse the rule by claiming that whoever is acting as the official is perceived to be biased convinced the committee to agree to this change. Although the prohibition is now limited to those officials who have a conflict of interest or bias, the Department expects that an institution will make every effort to ensure that officials conducting proceedings do not have a perceived conflict of interest or bias against either the accused or the accuser.
The negotiators discussed defining who would be considered an “official” for the purposes of an institutional disciplinary proceeding to add clarity to the regulation. Some of the negotiators suggested specifying that students could be “officials” in this context, noting that at many institutions, students often serve as officials during a disciplinary proceeding. Other negotiators strongly disagreed with this practice, raising concerns that having students serve as officials during disciplinary proceedings calls into question the possibility of having a prompt, fair, and impartial process, and that it can result in re-victimization of the accuser or secondary or vicarious traumatization for the student officials. These negotiators did not believe that a definition of “official” should include students. While the Department declined to add a definition of “official” to the proposed regulations, we stress that when an institution involves students in a disciplinary proceeding, the students are serving as officials of the institution during that proceeding and nothing about being a student changes that role. In that vein, we note that the requirements in proposed § 668.46(k)(2)(ii) pertaining to training for officials and § 668.46(k)(3)(i)(C) pertaining to conflicts of interest in a disciplinary proceeding would apply to students as well as other individuals serving as officials during an institutional disciplinary proceeding.
Lastly, after consideration of the discussion at the second session, the Department removed the reference to § 668.46(k)(3)(i)(D) which would have required that, in order for an institution's disciplinary proceeding to be considered prompt, fair, and impartial under the Clery Act, the proceeding must, at a minimum, comply with guidance issued by OCR. As the Department explained to the negotiators at the start of the rule-making, the Clery regulations address only an institution's responsibilities under the Clery Act, and do not affect or conflict with the requirements under Title IX as interpreted by OCR in its guidance documents. In order to meet Clery Act requirements, as amended by VAWA, an institution must only state in its annual security report what standard of evidence it uses in its disciplinary proceedings regarding sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking. This Clery Act requirement does not conflict with the Title IX obligation to use the preponderance of the evidence standard in Title IX proceedings. A recipient can comply with Title IX and the Clery Act by using a preponderance of evidence standard in disciplinary proceedings regarding Title IX complaints and by disclosing this standard in the annual security report required by the Clery Act.
Please see the section on
Some non-Federal negotiators also indicated at the first session of negotiations that it would be helpful for the regulations to define the term “proceeding” because institutions use a variety of approaches when conducting a disciplinary proceeding. In response to the discussion at the first session, the Department introduced draft regulations at the second session of negotiations defining the term “proceeding” to mean all activities related to the resolution of an institutional disciplinary complaint, including, but not limited to, fact-finding investigations, formal or informal meetings, and hearings. The definition of “proceeding” was modified at the last session of negotiations to mean all activities related to a non-criminal resolution of an institutional disciplinary complaint, including, but not limited to, fact-finding investigations, formal or informal meetings, and hearings to clarify that institutional disciplinary proceedings are not courts of law that resolve criminal matters.
Lastly, at the first session of negotiated rulemaking the non-Federal negotiators requested that the Department develop proposed regulations in § 668.46(k) that would harmonize the terms “results,” “outcomes,” “resolution,” and “final determinations,” with regard to an institution's disciplinary proceeding because they found the interchangeable use of these terms confusing. In response to this request, the Department introduced draft language at the second session that defined the term “result.” As proposed in § 668.46(k)(3)(iv), “result” was defined as an initial, interim, and final decision by any official or entity authorized to resolve disciplinary matters within the institution. The result must include any sanctions imposed by the institution.
The proposed definition of “result” was generally well-received, however, the negotiators debated whether to mandate the inclusion of the rationale for the result in the disclosure provided to the parties (and therefore in the definition) so that if an institution has an appeals process, the accused and the accuser will have a basis for the appeal. One non-Federal negotiator felt that including the rationale for the result in the proposed regulations would be contrary to the definition of “final results” in the Department's FERPA regulations at 34 CFR 99.39. At the third and last session of negotiations, the Department introduced new draft language in § 668.46(k)(3)(iv) to amend the definition of “result” to require that, notwithstanding FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g), the result must also include the reason for the result. The Department explained that the regulations under FERPA do not specifically address whether the permissible disclosure to the victim of the “final results” of a disciplinary proceeding with respect to a crime of violence or a non-forcible sex offense under 34 CFR 99.31(a)(13) and 99.39 includes the reason for the result. However, the Department has decided that, in light of the increased disclosures and rights provided to the accuser under VAWA, including potentially the right to appeal if the institution's procedures provide an appeal, it is vital that the accuser be informed of the reason for the result. A non-Federal negotiator, while agreeing that the reason for the result should be included in the definition of “result,” suggested that the definition should also include the rationale for the sanctions and the committee reached consensus on this additional language.
As stated previously, section 304(a)(5) of VAWA amended section 485(f)(8) of the HEA to require that each institution of higher education that participates in any title IV, HEA program, other than a foreign institution, include a statement of policy in the institution's annual security report addressing the procedures for institutional disciplinary action in cases of alleged dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. As a result of the discussions at the first session of negotiations, the Department introduced draft language for § 668.46(k) that reflected all of the statutory changes outlined under the
At the last session of negotiated rulemaking, the committee reviewed revised draft language developed by the Department. A non-Federal negotiator suggested that the Department remove the words “in detail” from the description of each type of disciplinary proceeding used by an institution in § 668.46(k)(1)(i). The same non-Federal negotiator suggested that the Department remove the words “reported incident of an alleged crime” and substitute the words “an allegation of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking” in § 668.46(k)(1)(i), (k)(1)(ii), and (k)(1)(iii) because institutions do not adjudicate crimes. After discussion, the committee agreed to these suggestions.
The Department also included, in the draft language provided during the second negotiating session, a new § 668.46(k)(1)(iii), which tracks newly amended section 485(f)(8)(B)(ii) of the HEA and requires that the institution describe the possible sanctions or protective measures that the institution may impose following the results of any institutional disciplinary procedure regarding these incidents. The negotiating committee's discussion on this provision focused on whether the institution should provide the possible sanctions as opposed to a list of all sanctions that an institution may impose. Several non-Federal negotiators thought that providing an exhaustive list of sanctions would hamper an institution's ability to strengthen sanctions or be innovative in imposing sanctions, while others felt that requiring an exhaustive list would require institutions to be more transparent about the types of sanctions they impose and permit students and employees to consider whether those sanctions are appropriate under the circumstances.
At the last session, several non-Federal negotiators continued to argue against requiring an institution to list all sanctions because if only a small number of sanctions were imposed, disclosing such a list might trigger FERPA violations or a title IX complaint. Other non-Federal negotiators argued that if an institution is not required to list all possible sanctions, the institution may abuse its discretion and impose an inappropriately light sanction. One non-Federal negotiator pointed out that, since 2005, the Handbook has provided guidance suggesting that institutions list all sanctions imposed, meaning that listing all sanctions was not an entirely new approach.
The committee debated whether to require an institution to describe the range of sanctions and protective measures rather than provide an exhaustive list to allow the institution to retain flexibility in providing a sanction or protective measure that may be unique to a certain situation. In response to the concerns that institutions should retain some flexibility, the Department noted that institutions have the authority to change their policies during the year, including after they publish their annual security report. In this case, if an institution changes its policies to include or remove sanctions during the year, the Department would expect the institution's next annual security report to reflect the institution's revised list of sanctions. Some of the non-Federal negotiators favored requiring an exhaustive list of sanctions, to ensure transparency, but a range of protective measures in order to preserve the confidentiality of a victim and also to preserve flexibility to provide ad hoc protective measures for victims. The committee ultimately agreed that sanctions for perpetrators and protective measures available to victims should be addressed in separate paragraphs at §§ 668.46(k)(1)(iii) and (k)(1)(iv) in this NPRM, which requires an institution to list all possible sanctions and a range of protective measures, respectively.
As stated previously, section 304(a)(5) of VAWA amended section 485(f)(8)(iv) of the HEA to require that the accuser and the accused be entitled to the same opportunities to have others present during an institutional disciplinary proceeding, including the opportunity to be accompanied to any related meeting or proceeding by an advisor of their choice. At the first session of negotiated rulemaking, several non-Federal negotiators stated that the term “advisor” should be defined and that the role of the advisor and the extent to which an advisor can participate in a disciplinary proceeding should be clearly delineated in the proposed regulations. Several non-Federal
At the second session of negotiations, the Department presented draft language for proposed § 668.46(k)(2)(iii) that would require an institution to provide the accuser and the accused with the same opportunities to have others present during any institutional disciplinary proceeding, including the opportunity to be accompanied to any related meeting or proceeding by the advisor of their choice. Based on the discussion of this topic in the first session, we also defined the term “advisor” in § 668.46(k)(3)(ii) of the draft to mean an individual who provides the accused or accuser support, guidance, or advice. The draft regulations provided that an institution may not limit the choice of advisor for either party but that an institution could limit the extent to which an advisor may participate in the proceedings, such as restricting cross-examination of witnesses or prohibiting advisors from addressing the decision-maker, as long as the limits apply equally to both parties. Several non-Federal negotiators supported this approach and agreed with the Department's view that the statutory language was intended to allow the accuser and the accused to have the advisor of their choice. Other non-Federal negotiators felt that allowing the accused or the accuser to bring an attorney to a disciplinary proceeding created an advantage for that party and would intimidate the party that chose not to bring an attorney or who could not afford to bring an attorney. Additionally, these non-Federal negotiators expressed concern that the presence of attorneys would change the tenor of institutional disciplinary proceedings. There was general agreement that an institution could place limits on the participation of an advisor; however, one non-Federal negotiator objected to the Department's choice of the words “restricting cross-examination of witnesses” because of the concern that such language gave the impression, falsely, that disciplinary proceedings are criminal legal proceedings.
The Department's final draft regulation, presented at the third and last session, simplified the proposed definition of “advisor” in § 668.46(k)(3)(ii) by defining the term to mean an individual who provides the accuser or accused support, guidance, or advice. The Department's draft language moved substantive provisions from the prior definition of “advisor” into a new § 668.46(k)(2)(iv) to provide that an institution may not limit the choice of advisor for either the accuser or the accused; however, the institution may establish restrictions regarding the extent to which the advisor may participate in the proceedings, as long as the restrictions apply equally to both parties. This change was intended to separate the definition of the term “advisor” from the role the advisor plays in a disciplinary hearing. At the outset of the discussion of this issue, the Department made clear that its interpretation of the statutory language was that the accused and the accuser are entitled to an advisor of their choice, including an attorney. One non-Federal negotiator suggested that the Department add language to new § 668.46(k)(2)(iv) to bar an institution from limiting the choice or presence of an advisor for either the accuser or the accused to make it clear that both parties in the proceeding are entitled to be accompanied by an advisor. Other non-Federal negotiators felt this was redundant given that § 668.46(k)(2)(iii) states that the accuser and the accused have the same opportunities to have others present during any institutional disciplinary proceeding, including the opportunity to be accompanied to any related meeting or proceeding by the advisor of their choice. The non-Federal negotiators expressed strong concerns on both sides of this issue. Several non-Federal negotiators characterized the restriction on an institution's ability to limit the choice of an advisor as a significant change that would create a serious burden on institutions while others characterized the requirement as a long-overdue protection for victims of sexual violence. Ultimately, the negotiators agreed to the language in proposed § 668.46(k)(2)(iii), which would provide that the institution cannot limit the choice or presence of advisor for either the accuser or the accused in any meeting or institutional disciplinary proceeding. However, proposed § 668.46(k)(2)(iv) would allow institutions to establish restrictions regarding the extent to which the advisor may participate in the proceedings, as long as the restrictions apply equally to both parties. We note that the proposed definition of “advisor” to mean someone who provides the accuser or accused support, guidance, or advice is not intended to include individuals acting as interpreters or translators. For example, a victim with limited English proficiency involved in a campus disciplinary proceeding who requires an interpreter to understand the proceedings would still be entitled to bring an advisor of their choice.
The non-Federal negotiators debated the merits of including regulatory standards for the training that officials who conduct disciplinary proceedings must receive during the first session of negotiations. There was strong agreement that such training is necessary but that the training content should be flexible to reflect the diversity of institutional environments, that it should incorporate existing evidence-based research or practice, and that it should emphasize the need for both impartiality and sensitivity in dealing with the accused and the accuser. Several non-Federal negotiators questioned whether standards for training should be included in the Handbook or other best practices document as opposed to the proposed regulations. The subcommittee formed to further explore the issue of prevention and awareness programs agreed to add the topic of training on disciplinary proceedings to its agenda and report back to the negotiated rulemaking committee on their findings in the second session.
At the second negotiated rulemaking session, the subcommittee that was formed to address prevention and awareness programs as well as training on disciplinary hearings shared with the whole committee a list of training standards they had developed for officials who conduct disciplinary proceedings. Although the list was comprehensive and well-received, it was the general feeling of the negotiated rulemaking committee that such a list should be included in a best practices document or the Handbook rather than the proposed regulations because the level of detail went beyond the scope of the Department's rulemaking authority.
As stated previously, section 304(a)(5) of VAWA amended section 485(f)(8)(iv) of the HEA to require that both the accuser and the accused be simultaneously informed, in writing, of the outcome of any disciplinary proceeding; the institution's procedures for both parties to appeal the results of
The draft regulatory language that the Department presented at the second session included a provision reflecting statutory language that an institution must require simultaneous notification, in writing, to both the accuser and the accused, of the result of any institutional disciplinary proceeding that arises from an allegation of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking and the institution's procedures for the accused and the victim to appeal the result of the institutional disciplinary proceeding, if such procedures are available. The Department considered including a requirement that institutions provide for an appeal process but decided that such a requirement is not supported by the statute. One non-Federal negotiator expressed concern that the proposed regulations may be interpreted as requiring that a police incident report may have to be included in the final result of a disciplinary proceeding. The Department assured the negotiator that the regulations were not intended to require an incident report to be part of the final result. Another non-Federal negotiator was concerned that the language did not allow a victim to opt out of receiving the final results while several other negotiators felt that notifying victims of the outcome should always be required.
In its draft regulations presented to the committee during the third session, the Department proposed a new provision in § 668.46(k)(2)(v)(A), which would exempt an institution from the requirement that it simultaneously notify, in writing, both the accuser and the accused of the result of a disciplinary proceeding if the accuser or the accused requested not to be informed of the result. This draft language was strongly criticized by several members of the committee because they believed that requiring notification was an important part of the process for victims, who sometimes have been left in the dark as to the result of a disciplinary proceeding. These committee members recognized that some victims might not want to actually view the results, but they suggested that there are ways in which an institution could send the victim the results, such as in a sealed envelope, which would allow the victim to make the decision of whether or not to view them. For these reasons, the Department agreed to remove the provision.
Institutions of higher education that participate in the Federal student financial aid programs authorized by title IV of the HEA are required to comply with the Clery Act. According to the most current IPEDS data, a total of 7,508 institutions were participating in title IV programs in 2012. The Department reviews institutions for compliance with the Clery Act and has imposed fines for significant non-compliance. The Department expects that these proposed changes will be beneficial for students, prospective students, and employees, prospective employees, the public and the institutions themselves.
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing these proposed regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that these proposed regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
This Regulatory Impact Analysis is divided into five sections. The “Need for Regulatory Action” section discusses why these implementing regulations are necessary to define terms and improve upon the methods by which institutions count crimes within their Clery geography.
The “Discussion of Costs and Benefits” section considers the cost and benefit implications of these regulations for students and institutions. There would be two primary benefits of the proposed regulations. First, we expect students and prospective students and employees and prospective employees to be better informed and better able to make choices in regards to higher education attendance and employment because the proposed regulations would improve the method by which crimes on campuses are counted and reported. Second, we would provide further clarity on students' and employees' rights and procedures by requiring institutions to design and disclose policies and institutional programs to prevent sexual assault.
Under “Net Budget Impacts,” the Department presents its estimate that the final regulations would not have a significant net budget impact on the Federal government.
In “Alternatives Considered,” we describe other approaches the Department considered for key provisions of the proposed regulations, including definitions of “outcomes,” “initial and final determinations,” “resolution,” “dating violence,” “employees,” “consent,” and “sodomy and sexual assault with an object.”
The “Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis” considers the effect of the proposed regulations on small entities.
Finally, the “Clarity of the Regulations” provides guidance to commenters when reviewing the proposed regulations for ease of understanding.
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.” In this case, there is indeed a compelling public need for regulation. The Department's goal in regulating is to incorporate the provisions in VAWA into the Department's Clery Act regulations.
On March 7, 2013, President Obama signed VAWA into law. Among other provisions, this law amended the Clery Act. The statutory changes made by VAWA require institutions to compile statistics for certain crimes that are reported to campus security authorities or local police agencies including incidents of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Additionally, institutions will be required to include certain policies, procedures, and programs pertaining to these crimes in their annual security reports.
During the negotiated rulemaking process, non-Federal negotiators discussed issues relating to the new provisions in the Clery Act addressing dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking including:
• Methods of compiling statistics of incidents that occur within Clery geography and are reported to campus security authorities.
• Definitions of terms.
• Programs to prevent dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
• Procedures that will be followed once an incident of these crimes has been reported, including a statement of the standard of evidence that will be used during any institutional disciplinary proceeding arising from the report.
• Educational programs to promote the awareness of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, which shall include primary prevention and awareness programs for incoming students and new employees, as well as ongoing prevention and awareness programs for students and faculty.
• The right of the accuser and the accused to have an advisor of their choice present during an institutional disciplinary proceeding.
• Simultaneous notification to both the accuser and the accused of the outcome of the institutional disciplinary proceeding.
• Informing victims of options for victim assistance in changing academic, living, transportation, and working situations, if requested by the victim and such accommodations are reasonably available, regardless of whether the victim chooses to report the crime to campus police or local law enforcement.
As a result of these discussions, the proposed regulations would require institutions to compile statistics for certain crimes (dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking) that are reported to campus security authorities or local police agencies. Additionally, institutions would be required to include certain policies, procedures, and programs pertaining to these crimes in their annual security reports (ASRs).
The purpose of the disclosures required by the Clery Act is to give prospective and current students information to help them make decisions about their potential or continued enrollment in a postsecondary institution. Prospective
A benefit of these proposed regulations is that they would strengthen the rights of students and employees in connection with reported incidents of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Institutions would be required to collect statistics for crimes reported to campus security authorities and local police agencies that involve incidents of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. This would improve crime reporting. In addition, students, prospective students, families, and employees and potential employees of the institutions, would be better informed about each campus's safety and procedures.
These proposed regulations would require institutions to include in their annual security report information about the institution's policies and programs to prevent sexual assault, which would cover programs that address dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. This information would help students and employees understand these rights and procedures. Prevention and awareness programs for all new students and employees, as well as ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns for enrolled students and faculty would be beneficial in providing additional information to students and employees.
The revised provisions related to institutional disciplinary proceedings in cases of alleged dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking would protect the accuser and the accused by ensuring an equal opportunity to have an advisor at meetings and proceedings, an equal right to appeal if appeals are available, and the right to learn of the outcome of the proceedings, including the rationale. Accusers would gain the benefit of a required written explanation of their rights and options, including information about the possible sanctions an institution may impose on perpetrators and the range of protective measures an institution may make available to victims.
Institutions would largely bear the costs of these proposed regulations, which would fall into two categories: Paperwork costs of complying with the regulations, and other compliance costs that institutions may incur as they attempt to improve security on campus. Under the proposed regulations, institutions would have to include in the annual security report, descriptions of the primary prevention and awareness programs offered for all incoming students and new employees and descriptions of the ongoing prevention and awareness programs provided for enrolled students and employees. To comply, some institutions may need to create or update material about the availability of prevention programs while others may already provide sufficient information. Awareness and prevention programs can be offered in a variety of formats, including electronically, so the costs of any changes institutions would make in response to the proposed regulations could vary significantly and the Department has not attempted to quantify additional costs associated with awareness and prevention programs.
Another area in which institutions could incur costs related to the proposed regulations involves institutional disciplinary proceedings in cases of alleged dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Institutions will be required to have a policy statement describing the proceedings that would have to describe the standard of evidence that applies; the possible sanctions; that the accused and the accuser will have an equal right to have others present, including advisors of their choice; and that written notice of the outcomes of the proceedings would be given simultaneously to both the accused and the accuser. The proceedings would be conducted by officials who receive annual training on issues related to dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking as well as training on how to conduct investigations and hearings in a way to protect the safety of victims. Depending upon their existing procedures, some institutions may have to make changes to their disciplinary proceedings. The Department has not attempted to quantify those potential additional costs, which could vary significantly amongst institutions.
In addition to the costs described above, institutions would incur costs associated with the reporting and disclosure requirements of the proposed regulations. This additional workload is discussed in more detail under the
Given the limited data available, the Department is particularly interested in comments and supporting information related to the estimated burden stemming from the proposed regulations. Estimates included in this notice will be reevaluated based on any information received during the public comment period.
The proposed regulations are not estimated to have a significant net budget impact in the title IV, HEA student aid programs over loan cohorts from 2014 to 2024. Consistent with the requirements of the Credit Reform Act of 1990, budget cost estimates for the student loan programs reflect the estimated net present value of all future non-administrative Federal costs associated with a cohort of loans. (A cohort reflects all loans originated in a given fiscal year.)
In general, these estimates were developed using the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Credit Subsidy Calculator. The OMB calculator takes projected future cash flows from the Department's student loan cost estimation model and produces discounted subsidy rates reflecting the net present value of all future Federal costs associated with awards made in a given fiscal year. Values are calculated using a “basket of zeros” methodology under which each cash flow is discounted using the interest rate of a zero-coupon Treasury bond with the same maturity as that cash flow. To ensure comparability across programs, this methodology is incorporated into the calculator and used government-
We are not estimating that the proposed regulations will have a net budget impact on the title IV aid programs. We assume that institutions will generally continue to comply with Clery Act reporting requirements and such compliance has no net budget impact on the title IV aid programs. In the past, the Department has imposed fines on institutions that violate the Clery Ac but those fines do not have a net budget impact. Therefore, we estimate that the proposed regulations will have no net budget impact on the title IV, HEA programs.
The Department determined that regulatory action was needed in order to implement the changes made to the Clery Act by VAWA, reflect the statutory language in the regulations and make some technical and clarifying changes to the Department's existing Clery Act regulations.
During the development of the proposed regulations, a number of different approaches to implement the amendments made to the Clery Act were discussed by the Department during the negotiated rulemaking process. Some of these approaches included the addition of clarifying definitions for “outcomes,” “initial and final determinations,” “resolution,” “dating violence,” “employees,” “consent,” and “sodomy and sexual assault with an object.” These alternative approaches are discussed below.
The Department considered harmonizing the terms, “outcomes”, “initial and final determinations”, and “resolution”, used throughout the Clery Act regulations for internal consistency and to provide clarity for institutions. These terms are often being used interchangeably, along with the term “results.” The Department considered an alternative definition of “outcomes” as one or more parts of the results. The Department also considered an alternative definition of “initial and final determinations,” which would have defined the term “initial determinations” to include those decisions made before the appeals process, if the institution had such process. A “final determination” would be the decision made after the appeals process had been completed. Adding a definition of the term “resolution” was also considered by the Department. The Department ultimately decided to use the term “results” in the proposed regulations to refer to the initial, interim, and final decisions.
The Department considered several alternatives to the definition of “dating violence.” The inclusion of emotional and psychological abuse, along with sexual and physical abuse, was considered. The Department decided to include only sexual or physical abuse or the threat of such abuse in the definition. The Department decided that some instances of emotional and psychological abuse do not rise to the level of “violence” which is part of the statutory definition of the term “dating violence” under VAWA. The Department also has concerns over implementation by campus security authorities of a definition of the term if it included these forms of abuse.
The Department also considered how to define “dating violence” as a crime for Clery Act purposes when it may not be a crime in some jurisdictions. To address this concern, the Department added a statement that any incident meeting the definition of “dating violence” was considered a crime for the purposes of Clery Act reporting.
The Department considered adding a definition of “employee” to the proposed regulations. Some negotiators requested that the Department define this term to provide clarity to institutions. The Department decided not to define this term, however, since the existing regulations already effectively require institutions to determine who current employees are for the purposes of distributing their annual security reports.
The Department considered adding a definition of “consent” for the purposes of the Clery Act to the proposed regulations. Some negotiators indicated that a definition of “consent” would provide clarity for institutions, students, and employees for when a reported sex offense would need to be included in the institution's Clery Act statistics. However, a definition of “consent” might also create ambiguity in jurisdictions that either do not define “consent” or have a definition that differed from the one that would be in the regulations. The Department decided against including the definition of “consent” in the proposed regulations as we were not convinced that it would be helpful to institutions in complying with the Clery Act. For purposes of Clery Act reporting, all sex offenses that are reported to a campus security authority must be recorded in an institution's Clery Act statistics and, if reported to the campus police, must be included in the crime log, regardless of the issue of consent.
The Department had initially separated the terms “sodomy” and “sexual assault with an object” into two distinct definitions for which separate statistics would be reported by institutions. However, the Department decided to adopt the FBI's new definition of “rape.” This new definition of rape covers acts including rape, sodomy, and sexual assault with an object. Under this new definition of rape, all instances of sodomy and sexual assault with an object would be included in the definition of “rape.” Therefore, separate statistics would not be collected for these crime categories, and the Department therefore decided not to define these terms separately.
This Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis presents an estimate of the effect on small entities of the proposed regulations. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define “for-profit institutions” as “small businesses” if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operation with total annual revenue below $7,000,000. They define “non-profit institutions” as “small organizations” if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operation, or as “small entities” if they are institutions controlled by governmental entities with populations below 50,000. The Secretary invites comments from small entities as to whether they believe the proposed changes would have a significant economic impact on them and, if so, requests evidence to support that belief.
This proposed regulatory action would implement the changes made to the Clery Act by VAWA, reflect the statutory language in the regulations and make some technical and clarifying changes to the Department's existing Clery Act regulations. The proposed regulations would reflect the statutory requirement that institutions compile
The purpose of these data collections is to give prospective and current students information to help them make decisions about their potential or continued enrollment in a postsecondary institution. Prospective and current students and their families, staff, and the public use the information to assess an institution's security policies and the level and nature of crime on its campus. In addition to the disclosure to students and employees institutions must provide campus crime data to the Department annually.
On March 7, 2013, President Obama signed the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA) (Pub. L. 113-4). Among other provisions, this law amended section 485(f) HEA, otherwise known as the Clery Act. These statutory changes require institutions to compile statistics for incidents of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking that are reported to campus security authorities or local police agencies. Additionally, the proposed regulations would require institutions to include certain policies, procedures, and programs pertaining to these crimes in their annual security reports.
The proposed regulations would apply to institutions of higher education that participate in the title IV, HEA student aid programs, other than foreign institutions of higher education. From the most recent data compiled in the 2012 Campus Safety and Security Survey, we estimate that approximately 7,230 institutions would be subject to the proposed regulations, including 2,011 public, 1,845 private not-for-profit, and 3,365 private for-profit institutions. Of these institutions, we consider all of the private not-for-profit institutions and approximately 40 percent of private for-profit institutions as small entities. We do not believe any of the public institutions meet the definition of “small entity.”
Table 1 shows the estimated burden of each information collection requirement to the hours and costs estimated and discussed in more detail in the
The proposed regulations are unlikely to conflict with or duplicate existing Federal regulations.
As discussed in the “Regulatory Alternatives Considered” section of the
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
• Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly stated?
• Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?
• Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?
• Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” is preceded by the symbol “§ ” and a numbered heading; for example, § 668.46 Institutional security policies and crime statistics.)
• Could the description of the proposed regulations in the
• What else could we do to make the proposed regulations easier to understand?
To send any comments that concern how the Department could make these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions in the
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: The public understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents. Table 1 summarizes the estimated burden on small entities, primarily institutions and applicants, arising from the paperwork associated with the proposed regulations.
Section 668.46 contains information collection requirements. Under the PRA, the Department has submitted a copy of these sections, related forms, and Information Collections Requests (ICRs) to OMB for its review. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
In the final regulations, we will display the control numbers assigned by OMB to any information collection requirements proposed in this NPRM and adopted in the final regulations.
Based on the most recent data compiled in the 2012 Campus Safety and Security Survey, there are 7,230 total institutions. This figure includes 2,011 Public, 1,845 Private Not-for-Profit, and 3,365 Private For-Profit institutions. This data was collected from August to October 2013 and represents the most current information available. The PRA section will use these figures in assessing burden.
We propose to expand § 668.46(b)(4)(iii) to include, in the statement of policy, the requirement that the institution encourage accurate and prompt reporting of all crimes to the campus police and the appropriate police agency when a victim of a crime elects to or is unable to make such a report. This proposed change incorporates modifications made to the HEA by VAWA, ensures complete reporting of crime statistics in the institution's annual security report and provides for a safer campus community whether a crime is reported by the victim or a third-party.
We propose to revise and restructure § 668.46(b)(11). Specifically, we propose to require institutions to include in their annual security report a statement of policy regarding the institution's programs to prevent dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking as well as the procedures that the institutions would follow when one of these crimes is reported. This proposed change incorporates modifications made to the HEA by VAWA.
In § 668.46(b)(11)(ii) we propose that institutions must provide written information to the victim of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. This includes information regarding: The preservation of evidence to assist in proving the alleged criminal offense or obtaining a protective order; how and to whom an alleged offense is to be reported; options for the involvement of law enforcement and campus authorities; and where applicable the victim's rights or institution's responsibilities for orders of protection. This proposed change incorporates modifications made to the HEA by VAWA as well as changes discussed during the negotiations.
In § 668.46(b)(11)(iii) we propose to add a section to specify that institutions must address in their annual security report how they will complete publicly available recordkeeping for the purposes of Clery Act reporting while not including identifying information about the victim and while maintaining the confidentiality of any accommodations or protective measures given to the victim, to the extent that such exclusions would not impair the ability of the institution to provide such accommodations or protective measures. This proposed change incorporates modifications made to the HEA by VAWA as well as discussions during negotiations.
We propose to revise § 668.46(b)(11)(iv) to require institutions to specify in their annual security reports that they will provide a written notification of an expanded list of services to students and employees if the services are available. These services include existing counseling, health, mental health, victim advocacy, legal assistance, visa and immigration services for the victim, and other services that may be available at the institution and in the community. This proposed change incorporates modifications made to the HEA by VAWA as well as discussions during negotiations.
We propose to revise current § 668.46(b)(11)(v) to require institutions to specify in their annual security report that written notification would be provided to victims of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking regarding their options for, and the availability of, changes to academic, living, transportation, and working situations. These options would have to be afforded any victim, regardless of whether the victim reports the crime to campus police or law enforcement. This proposed change incorporates modifications made to the HEA by VAWA, as well as discussions during negotiations.
We propose to add a new § 668.46(b)(11)(vii) to require institutions to specify in their annual security reports that when a student or employee of the institution reports to the institution that a person is a victim of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking that victim will be provided a written explanation of their rights and options under this subsection, whether the offense occurred on campus or off campus. This proposed change incorporates modifications made to the HEA by VAWA.
Collectively, burden would increase by 18,076 hours under OMB Control Number 1845-0022.
The proposed revisions to § 668.46(c)(1) would add the VAWA crimes of dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking to the crimes for which an institution must collect and disclose statistics as part of their annual crime statistics reporting process. The Department is modifying its approach for the reporting and disclosing of sex offenses to reflect updates to the FBI's (Uniform Crime Reporting) UCR program and to improve the clarity of § 668.46(c)(1). The Department is proposing a restructuring of the paragraph to consolidate all the reportable Clery Act crimes and to appropriately reflect the categories of crimes.
While institutions would continue to be required to report statistics for the three most recent calendar years, the proposed reporting requirements have been expanded because of the addition of new crimes added by VAWA.
We have revised § 668.46(c)(4)(iii) and § 668.46(c)(vii) to include gender identity and national origin as two new categories of bias that serve as the basis for a determination of a hate crime. The institution would have to identify the category of bias that motivated the crime.
Under proposed § 668.46(c)(6), we added stalking as a reportable crime. The Department would define “stalking” in the proposed regulations.
These proposed changes implement the changes VAWA made to the HEA and improve the overall clarity of this paragraph. We believe that additional burden would be added because there are additional crimes, categories of crimes, differentiation of hate crimes, and expansions of the categories of bias that must be reported.
Collectively, burden would increase by 10,846 hours under OMB Control Number 1845-0022.
Proposed § 668.46(j)(1)(i) would require that the institution's statement would have to contain certain elements in the description of the primary prevention and awareness programs for incoming students and new employees including the institution's prohibition of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, definitions of those crimes and a definition of “consent” according to the applicable jurisdiction, a description of safe and positive options for bystander intervention, information on risk reduction, and other elements of paragraphs 668.46(b)(11)(ii)-(vii) and (k)(2). This is being done to incorporate changes made to the HEA by VAWA.
Proposed § 668.46(j)(1)(ii) would require that the institution's statement must contain certain elements in the description of the ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns for students and employees, including the institution's prohibition of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking; definitions of those crimes; a definition of consent according to the applicable jurisdiction, a description of safe and positive options for bystander intervention; information on risk reduction; and other elements of paragraphs 668.46(b)(11)(ii)-(vii) and (k)(2). This is being done to incorporate changes made to the HEA by VAWA.
Collectively, burden would increase by 28,920 hours under OMB Control Number 1845-0022.
Proposed § 668.46(k)(1) would require various additions to the institution's statement of policy that must be included in the annual security report. While a statement of policy is required under current regulations (see § 668.46(b)(11)(vii)), the proposed regulations would require the following additions to the statement of policy.
Proposed § 668.46(k)(1)(i) provides that the statement of policy must describe each type of disciplinary proceeding used by the institution including the steps, anticipated timelines, and decision-making process for each, and how the institution determines which type of disciplinary hearing to use. Proposed § 668.46(k)(1)(ii) would provide that the statement of policy must describe the standard of evidence that would be used
Under proposed § 668.46(k)(2), the institution would have to provide additional information regarding its disciplinary proceedings in the statement of policy. An institution's statement of policy would have to provide that its disciplinary proceeding includes a prompt, fair, and impartial process from the initial investigation to the final result under proposed § 668.46(k)(2)(i). The policy statement would have to provide that the proceeding will be conducted by officials who receive annual training on the issues related to dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, and annual training on how to conduct an investigation and hearing process that protects the safety of victims and promotes accountability under proposed § 668.46(k)(2)(ii). Under proposed § 668.46(k)(2)(iii), an institution's statement of policy must provide that its disciplinary proceeding will afford the accuser and the accused the same opportunities to have others present during an institutional disciplinary proceeding, including the opportunity to be accompanied to any related meeting or proceeding by an advisor of their choice. As proposed under § 668.46(k)(2)(iv), an institution cannot limit the choice or presence of an advisor, however, the institution may establish restrictions regarding the advisor's participation in the proceedings as long as those restrictions apply equally to both the accuser and the accused. Finally, under proposed § 668.46(k)(2)(v), an institution's statement of policy would require simultaneous notification, in writing, to both the accuser and the accused of the result of any institutional disciplinary proceeding, the institution's procedures for the accused and the victim's right to appeal the result, any change to the result, or when such results become final.
Collectively, burden would increase by 19,883 hours under OMB Control Number 1845-0022.
Consistent with the discussion above, Table 4 describes the sections of the proposed regulations involving information collections, the information that would be collected, the collections that the Department will submit to OMB for approval and public comment under the PRA, and the estimated costs associated with the information collections. The monetized net costs of the increased burden on institutions and borrowers, using BLS wage data available at
These programs are not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
In accordance with section 411 of the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the Secretary particularly requests comments on whether the proposed regulations would require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible
The official version of this document is the document published in the
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Colleges and universities, Consumer protection, Grant programs—education, Loan programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Selective Service System, Student aid, Vocational education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of Education proposes to amend part 668 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
20 U.S.C. 1001, 1002, 1003, 1070g, 1085, 1088, 1091, 1092, 1094, 1099c, and 1099c-1, unless otherwise noted.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(i) Buildings and property that are part of the institution's campus;
(ii) The institution's noncampus buildings and property; and
(iii) Public property within or immediately adjacent to and accessible from the campus.
(2) For the purposes of maintaining the crime log required in paragraph (f) of this section, Clery Geography includes, in addition to the locations in paragraph (1) of this definition, areas within the patrol jurisdiction of the campus police or the campus security department.
(1) The existence of such a relationship shall be determined based on the reporting party's statement and with consideration of the length of the relationship, the type of relationship, and the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.
(2) For the purpose of this definition—
(i) Dating violence includes, but is not limited to, sexual or physical abuse or the threat of such abuse.
(ii) Dating violence does not include acts covered under the definition of domestic violence.
(3) For the purposes of complying with the requirements of this section and section 668.41, any incident meeting this definition is considered a crime for the purposes of Clery Act reporting.
(i) By a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim;
(ii) By a person with whom the victim shares a child in common;
(iii) By a person who is cohabitating with, or has cohabitated with, the victim as a spouse or intimate partner;
(iv) By a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction in which the crime of violence occurred, or
(v) By any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person's acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction in which the crime of violence occurred.
(2) For the purposes of complying with the requirements of this section and section 668.41, any incident meeting this definition is considered a crime for the purposes of Clery Act reporting.
(i) Are culturally relevant, inclusive of diverse communities and identities, sustainable, responsive to community needs, and informed by research or assessed for value, effectiveness, or outcome; and
(ii) Consider environmental risk and protective factors as they occur on the individual, relationship, institutional, community, and societal levels.
(2) Programs to prevent dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking include both primary prevention and awareness programs directed at incoming students and new employees and ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns directed at students and employees, as defined in paragraph (j)(2).
(i) Fear for the person's safety or the safety of others; or
(ii) Suffer substantial emotional distress.
(2) For the purpose of this definition—
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(3) For the purposes of complying with the requirements of this section and section 668.41, any incident meeting this definition is considered a crime for the purposes of Clery Act reporting.
(b) * * *
(4) A statement of current policies concerning campus law enforcement that—
(i) Addresses the enforcement authority and jurisdiction of security personnel;
(ii) Addresses the working relationship of campus security personnel with State and local police agencies, including—
(A) Whether those security personnel have the authority to make arrests; and
(B) Any agreements, such as written memoranda of understanding between the institution and such agencies, for the investigation of alleged criminal offenses.
(iii) Encourages accurate and prompt reporting of all crimes to the campus police and the appropriate police agencies, when the victim of a crime elects to or is unable to make such a report; and
(iv) Describes procedures, if any, that encourage pastoral counselors and professional counselors, if and when they deem it appropriate, to inform the persons they are counseling of any procedures to report crimes on a voluntary, confidential basis for inclusion in the annual disclosure of crime statistics.
(11) A statement of policy regarding the institution's programs to prevent dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking and of procedures that the institution will follow when one of these crimes is reported. The statement must include—
(i) A description of the institution's educational programs and campaigns to promote the awareness of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, as required by paragraph (j) of this section;
(ii) Procedures victims should follow if a crime of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking has occurred, including written information about—
(A) The importance of preserving evidence that may assist in proving that the alleged criminal offense occurred or may be helpful in obtaining a protection order;
(B) How and to whom the alleged offense should be reported;
(C) Options about the involvement of law enforcement and campus authorities, including notification of the victim's option to—
(
(
(
(D) Where applicable, the rights of victims and the institution's responsibilities for orders of protection, no-contact orders, restraining orders, or similar lawful orders issued by a criminal, civil, or tribal court or by the institution.
(iii) Information about how the institution will protect the confidentiality of victims and other necessary parties, including how the institution will—
(A) Complete publicly available recordkeeping and, for purposes of Clery Act reporting and disclosure, without the inclusion of identifying information about the victim, as defined in section 40002(a)(20) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a)(20)); and
(B) Maintain as confidential any accommodations or protective measures provided to the victim, to the extent that maintaining such confidentiality would not impair the ability of the institution to provide the accommodations or protective measures.
(iv) A statement that the institution will provide written notification to
(v) A statement that the institution will provide written notification to victims about options for, and available assistance in, changing academic, living, transportation, and working situations. The institution must make such accommodations if the victim requests them and if they are reasonably available, regardless of whether the victim chooses to report the crime to campus police or local law enforcement;
(vi) An explanation of the procedures for institutional disciplinary action in cases of alleged dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as required by paragraph (k) of this section; and
(vii) A statement that, when a student or employee reports to the institution that the student or employee has been a victim of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, whether the offense occurred on or off campus, the institution will provide the student or employee a written explanation of the student's or employee's rights and options, as described in paragraphs (b)(11)(ii) through (vi) of this section.
(c)
(i) Primary crimes, including—
(A) Criminal homicide:
(
(
(B) Sex offenses:
(
(
(
(
(C) Robbery.
(D) Aggravated assault.
(E) Burglary.
(F) Motor vehicle theft.
(G) Arson.
(ii) Arrests and disciplinary actions, including—
(A) Arrests for liquor law violations, drug law violations, and illegal weapons possession.
(B) Persons not included in paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(A) of this section who were referred for campus disciplinary action for liquor law violations, drug law violations, and illegal weapons possession.
(iii) Hate crimes, including—
(A) The number of each type of crime in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section that are determined to be hate crimes; and
(B) The number of the following crimes that are determined to be hate crimes:
(
(
(
(
(iv) Dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking as defined in paragraph (a) of this section.
(2)
(ii) An institution may not withhold, or subsequently remove, a reported crime from its crime statistics based on a decision by a court, coroner, jury, prosecutor, or other similar noncampus official.
(3)
(ii) When recording crimes of stalking by calendar year, an institution must follow the requirements in paragraph (c)(6) of this section.
(4)
(i) Race,
(ii) Gender,
(iii) Gender identity,
(iv) Religion,
(v) Sexual orientation,
(vi) Ethnicity,
(vii) National origin, and
(viii) Disability.
(5)
(A) On campus,
(B) In or on a noncampus building or property, or
(C) On public property.
(ii) An institution must identify, of the crimes that occurred on campus, the number that took place in dormitories or other residential facilities for students on campus.
(iii) When recording stalking by location, an institution must follow the requirements in paragraph (c)(6) of this section.
(6)
(ii) An institution must record each report of stalking as occurring at only the first location within the institution's Clery Geography in which:
(A) A perpetrator engaged in the stalking course of conduct; or
(B) A victim first became aware of the stalking.
(iii) A report of stalking must be counted as a new and distinct crime and is not associated with a previous report of stalking when the stalking behavior continues after an official intervention including, but not limited to, an institutional disciplinary action or the issuance of a no-contact order, restraining order or any warning by the institution or a court.
(7)
(8)
(9)
(ii) In counting crimes when more than one offense was committed during a single incident, an institution must conform to the requirements of the Hierarchy Rule in the UCR Reporting Handbook, with one exception: In counting sex offenses, the Hierarchy Rule does not apply. For example, if a victim is both raped and murdered in a single incident, then an institution must include both the rape and the murder in its statistics.
(10)
(11)
(i) [Reserved]
(j)
(1) The statement must include—
(i) A description of the institution's primary prevention and awareness programs for all incoming students and new employees, which must include—
(A) A statement that the institution prohibits the crimes of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking;
(B) The definition of “dating violence,” “domestic violence,” “sexual assault,” and “stalking” in the applicable jurisdiction;
(C) The definition of “consent,” in reference to sexual activity, in the applicable jurisdiction;
(D) A description of safe and positive options for bystander intervention;
(E) Information on risk reduction; and
(F) The information described in paragraphs (b)(11) and (k)(2) of this section; and
(ii) A description of the institution's ongoing prevention and awareness campaigns for students and employees, including information described in paragraph (j)(1)(i)(A) through (F) of this section.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph—
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(3) An institution's programs to prevent dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking must include, at a minimum, the information described in paragraph (j)(1) of this section.
(k)
(1)(i) Describes each type of disciplinary proceeding used by the institution; the steps, anticipated timelines, and decision-making process for each type of disciplinary proceeding; and how the institution determines which type of proceeding to use based on the circumstances of an allegation of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
(ii) Describes the standard of evidence that will be used during any institutional disciplinary proceeding arising from an allegation of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
(iii) Lists all of the possible sanctions that the institution may impose following the results of any institutional disciplinary proceeding for an allegation of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking; and
(iv) Describes the range of protective measures that the institution may offer following an allegation of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
(2) Provides that the proceedings will—
(i) Include a prompt, fair, and impartial process from the initial investigation to the final result;
(ii) Be conducted by officials who, at a minimum, receive annual training on the issues related to dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking and on how to conduct an investigation and hearing process that protects the safety of victims and promotes accountability;
(iii) Provide the accuser and the accused with the same opportunities to have others present during any institutional disciplinary proceeding, including the opportunity to be accompanied to any related meeting or proceeding by the advisor of their choice;
(iv) Not limit the choice of advisor or presence for either the accuser or the accused in any meeting or institutional disciplinary proceeding; however, the institution may establish restrictions regarding the extent to which the advisor may participate in the
(v) Require simultaneous notification, in writing, to both the accuser and the accused, of—
(A) The result of any institutional disciplinary proceeding that arises from an allegation of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
(B) The institution's procedures for the accused and the victim to appeal the result of the institutional disciplinary proceeding, if such procedures are available;
(C) Any change to the result; and
(D) When such results become final.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph—
(i) A prompt, fair, and impartial proceeding includes a proceeding that is—
(A) Completed within reasonably prompt timeframes designated by an institution's policy, including a process that allows for the extension of timeframes for good cause with written notice to the accuser and the accused of the delay and the reason for the delay;
(B) Conducted in a manner that—
(
(
(
(C) Conducted by officials who do not have a conflict of interest or bias for or against the accuser or the accused.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(l) Compliance with paragraph (k) of this section does not constitute a violation of FERPA.
(m)
The following definitions are to be used for reporting the crimes listed in § 668.46, in accordance with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program. The definitions for
Any willful or malicious burning or attempt to burn, with or without intent to defraud, a dwelling house, public building, motor vehicle or aircraft, personal property of another, etc.
The killing of another person through gross negligence.
The willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.
The taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear.
An unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. (It is not necessary that injury result from an aggravated assault when a gun, knife, or other weapon is used which could and probably would result in serious personal injury if the crime were successfully completed.)
The unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or a theft. For reporting purposes this definition includes: Unlawful entry with intent to commit a larceny or felony; breaking and entering with intent to commit a larceny; housebreaking; safecracking; and all attempts to commit any of the aforementioned.
The theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle. (Classify as motor vehicle theft all cases where automobiles are taken by persons not having lawful access even though the vehicles are later abandoned—including joyriding.)
The violation of laws or ordinances prohibiting the manufacture, sale, purchase, transportation, possession, concealment, or use of firearms, cutting instruments, explosives, incendiary devices, or other deadly weapons.
The violation of laws prohibiting the production, distribution, and/or use of certain controlled substances and the equipment or devices utilized in their preparation and/or use. The unlawful cultivation, manufacture, distribution, sale, purchase, use, possession, transportation, or importation of any controlled drug or narcotic substance. Arrests for violations of State and local laws, specifically those relating to the unlawful possession, sale, use, growing, manufacturing, and making of narcotic drugs.
The violation of State or local laws or ordinances prohibiting the manufacture, sale, purchase, transportation, possession, or use of alcoholic beverages, not including driving under the influence and drunkenness.
Any sexual act directed against another person, without the consent of the victim, including instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent.
A.
B.
C.
D.
The unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession or constructive possession of another. Attempted larcenies are included. Embezzlement, confidence games, forgery, worthless checks, etc., are excluded.
An unlawful physical attack by one person upon another where neither the offender displays a weapon, nor the victim suffers obvious severe or aggravated bodily injury involving apparent broken bones, loss of teeth, possible internal injury, severe laceration, or loss of consciousness.
To unlawfully place another person in reasonable fear of bodily harm through the use of threatening words and/or other conduct, but without displaying a weapon or subjecting the victim to actual physical attack.
To willfully or maliciously destroy, damage, deface, or otherwise injure real or personal property without the consent of the owner or the person having custody or control of it.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
Interim final rule; request for comments.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is issuing an interim final rule (IFR) to implement the passenger civil aviation security service fee (security service fee) increase mandated by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by the TSA docket number to this rulemaking, to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), a government-wide, electronic docket management system, using any one of the following methods:
Michael Gambone, Office of Revenue, TSA-14, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6014; telephone (571) 227-2323; email:
TSA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from this rulemaking action.
With each comment, please identify the docket number at the beginning of your comments. TSA encourages commenters to provide their names and addresses. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the rulemaking, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. You may submit comments and material electronically, in person, by mail, or fax as provided under
If you would like TSA to acknowledge receipt of comments submitted by mail, include with your comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it to you.
TSA will file all comments to our docket address, as well as items sent to the address or email under
Do not submit comments that include trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, or SSI to the public regulatory docket. Please submit such comments separately from other comments on the rulemaking. Comments containing this type of information should be appropriately marked as containing such information and submitted by mail to the address listed in
TSA will not place comments containing SSI in the public docket and will handle them in accordance with applicable safeguards and restrictions on access. TSA will hold documents containing SSI, confidential business information, or trade secrets in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and place a note in the public docket explaining that commenters have submitted such documents. TSA may include a redacted version of the comment in the public docket. If an individual requests to examine or copy information that is not in the public docket, TSA will treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS') FOIA regulation found in 6 CFR part 5.
Please be aware that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments in any of our dockets by the name of the individual who submitted the comment (or signed the comment, if an association, business, labor union,
You may review TSA's electronic public docket on the Internet at
You may obtain an electronic copy of this document using the Internet by—
(1) Searching the electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web page at
(2) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at
(3) Visiting TSA's Security Regulations Web page at
In addition, copies are available by writing or calling the individual in the
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) requires TSA to comply with small entity requests for information and advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within TSA's jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a question regarding this document may contact the person listed in
This IFR implements amendments to 49 U.S.C. 44940, which authorizes TSA to impose fees to defray the government's costs for providing civil aviation security services, such as those related to screening personnel, screening equipment, and other specified security services.
As originally enacted and currently implemented, section 44940(c) imposes a ceiling on the amount of the fee.
Section 1510.3 defines “passenger enplanement” as a person boarding in the United States in scheduled or nonscheduled service on aircraft in intrastate, interstate, or foreign air transportation; a “one-way trip” as any trip that is not a round trip; and “round trip” as a trip on an air travel itinerary that terminates at the origin point.
At the request of the commercial aviation industry, which is required to collect the fee in the course of selling air transportation to passengers, TSA subsequently adopted the following interpretation of “one-way trip.”
As noted above, under ATSA, the revenue collected as a result of the fees authorized in 44940(a) is deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as a partial offset for TSA's appropriations dedicated to providing civil aviation security services. As TSA explains further below, the revenue from the fees has never neared the full appropriation to TSA for these costs. TSA anticipates that this will continue to be the case under the restructured fee discussed below.
The “fee increase” appears at section 601(b) of the Budget Act under the heading “Restructuring of Passenger Fee.” The Budget Act amends 44940(c) as follows:
• Before the Budget Act, the statute mandated that the fee “may not exceed $2.50 per enplanement in air transportation or intrastate air transportation that originates at an airport in the United States, except that the total amount of such fees may not exceed $5.00 per one-way trip.”
• Following the Budget Act, the statute mandates the fee “shall be $5.60 per one-way trip in air transportation or intrastate air transportation that originates at an airport in the United States.”
As noted above, the Budget Act simplifies the structure by (1) requiring that the fee be imposed on a one-way trip basis rather than a per-enplanement basis and (2) eliminating language that provided a cap on the amount of the fee as it relates to one-way trips. Where the original amount of the fee was calculated in terms of the number of enplanements in air transportation or intrastate air transportation originating at airports in the United States, under the Budget Act amendments, the restructured fee is based on each one-way trip. The Budget Act stipulates a July 1, 2014 effective date.
The statute is very specific about the use of the revenue generated. Since its initial enactment in 2001, 49 U.S.C. 44940 has required that the revenue from the security service fee is to be a partial offset for the portion of TSA's appropriation dedicated to providing civil aviation security services of the type identified in section 44940(a)(1). The Budget Act amended section 44940 to require that a portion of the fee revenue, $12.63 billion generated over 10 years, is deposited in the general fund as offsetting receipts for the Federal budget.
TSA is taking this action without providing prior public notice and comment. Section 601(d) of the Budget Act provides for implementation of the fee increase by July 1, 2014, through publication of notice of the fee in the
Apart from the statutory exemption discussed above, in light of the deadline and potential budgetary impacts, it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide for notice and comment before issuing this IFR. Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act
While the statute exempts TSA from notice and comment requirements, TSA has chosen to issue this rulemaking as an IFR to provide an opportunity for comments before the rule is finalized. The amendments to 49 CFR part 1510 under this IFR take effect at 12:00 a.m. (Eastern Daylight Time) on July 21, 2014. TSA will accept comments on this rule until August 19, 2014.
TSA is required by 49 U.S.C. 44940(c), as amended, to increase the security service fee to $5.60 per one-way trip. This rulemaking amends current 49 CFR part 1510 to implement the mandated security service fee increase.
As previously discussed, in 2002, representatives of the U.S. aviation industry asked TSA to implement the passenger fee provisions of the 2001 IFR using a definition of one-way trip that was more consistent with how the term was understood within the industry. The industry proposed that one-way trip should mean continuous travel from a point to another point during which a stopover does not occur, and that “stopover” should mean a break in travel of more than 4 hours between two domestic flights or 12 hours between a domestic flight and an international flight or two international flights.
TSA accepted this proposal and has used these definitions for purposes of imposing the fee since 2002. For example, in 2006, TSA posted additional guidance to the docket for this rulemaking, reiterating treatment of multiple one-way and round trips, non-revenue to revenue air transportation, and involuntary re-routes, as well as use of the definitions of “one-way trip” and “stopover” proposed by the industry in March 2002.
TSA is continuing to use the definition of “one-way trip” proposed by industry, with one minor change. One-way trip means continuous
TSA is continuing to employ the framework for the definition of “stopover” proposed by the industry, with modifications necessary to provide a distinction between continental and non-continental air transportation. Consistent with the definition provided by industry, a break in travel of more than four hours will be required before a stopover would occur (thus triggering a new one-way trip) for continental interstate or intrastate air transportation. A break in travel of more than 12 hours will be required before a stopover would occur (thus triggering a new one-way trip) for foreign air transportation. For purposes of this IFR, the continental United States includes the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia. This term excludes the non-contiguous States (Hawaii and Alaska), territories, and possessions of the United States.
In addition, a break in travel of more than 12 hours will be required before a stopover would occur (thus triggering a new one-way trip) for non-continental interstate or intrastate air transportation. Non-continental United States is not defined in the regulation because it logically includes those parts of the United States not considered “continental.”
Under the definition of “stopover” in this IFR, a fee of $11.20 would apply for the same itinerary because the itinerary would only involve two one-way trips:
TSA took several factors into consideration in determining to apply a 12-hour break for non-continental interstate and non-continental intrastate air transportation. Non-continental air transportation is more similar to foreign air transportation, often involving long breaks in connecting air transportation. In addition, including the 12-hour break in travel for non-continental intrastate air transportation recognizes the unique geographic situations that often make air transportation the only practical method of travel. TSA also notes that there are other provisions of law that distinguish between air transportation based on locations, such as federal excise taxes for air transportation
Finally, TSA is removing the definition of “round trip” as it is no longer relevant to either the definition of “one-way trip” or imposition of the fee, as discussed below. The definition of “origin point” is being removed as it is only relevant to the deleted definition of “round trip.”
As with the current regulations, imposition of the fee is applicable to air transportation
There is no indication that Congress intended to create any disparity between treatment of itineraries like these when it restructured the fee limitation. To the extent any underlying ambiguity exists in the limitation provision, it is clarified in the context of TSA's authority under 49 U.S.C. 44940(a)(1), which mandates TSA to impose a fee for passengers “in air transportation and intrastate air transportation originating at airports in the United States” with no distinction between segments and trips. Therefore, if there is covered air transportation at any point in the trip (in other words, any portion of the itinerary includes air transportation originating at an airport in the United States), TSA has authority to impose the fee and has done so consistently since the current regulations took effect in 2002. This better aligns the imposition of the fee with those who benefit from the security services provided for air transportation.
Finally, TSA is removing language that effectively applied a cap to the amount of the fee that could be imposed per “round trip.” Under current § 1510.5(a), passengers may not be charged for more than two enplanements per one-way trip or four enplanements per round trip. This provision effectively created a $10 cap on round-trip travel—in other words, it set a $10 cap on any itinerary that ended at its origin point, even if the itinerary included more than four $2.50 enplanements with lengthy stopovers.
Thus, for instance, if a passenger purchased a round trip for an itinerary involving ten enplanements, each separated by a three-day stopover, but ultimately ending at the origin point, a
As enacted by ATSA in 2001, section 44940(a) required imposition of a “uniform fee” on passengers, but specifically imposed a one-way cap on the fee amount in 44940(c). As discussed above, prior to the Budget Act amendments, section 44940(c) provided that the fee “may not exceed $2.50 per enplanement in air transportation or intrastate air transportation that originates at an airport in the United States, except that the total amount of such fees may not exceed $5.00 per one-way trip.” This language provided TSA with clear discretion to limit the amount of fee charged per enplanement and, therefore, to provide a cap on the amount charged per round trip. Amending section 44940(c) by mandating a fee of $5.60 per one-way trip, as well as eliminating the cap language that was in the statute as enacted in 2001, is consistent with the authorizing language of section 44940(a) and the requirement to impose a “uniform fee.”
Accordingly, in the absence of statutory language authorizing such a cap, and in light of the fact that a round-trip cap under the revised fee structure would have the effect of the fee being far less for some passengers than the mandatory $5.60 per one-way trip, this IFR does not include a limit on the number of one-way trips that can be charged per itinerary. TSA notes that by eliminating the round-trip cap, the restructured fee mitigates the likelihood of disparate treatment for substantially similar travel—some booked as round trips on one itinerary, and some not.
TSA seeks comment on removal of the round-trip cap, and specifically on whether TSA should consider reinstating a cap, and if so, what the cap should be in light of the statute's mandate that the fee be uniform (under 44940(a)). TSA also seeks comment on the definition of “one-way trip” and, in the Alternatives Discussion section below, on the definition of “stopover.”
Table 1 provides examples of the impact of the Budget Act's restructuring of the fee and removal of the round trip cap. They are ordered according to the approximate likelihood (from the type of itinerary most frequently purchased to those most infrequently purchased).
Also consistent with current practice, if a passenger's scheduled itinerary at the time the air transportation is sold includes a stopover, a separate fee will be imposed for travel beyond that point as each stopover triggers a separate one-way trip. Under current § 1510.9, if the passenger changes the itinerary to alter the number of one-way trips, additional collection of fee or a refund of the security service fee is required, as appropriate. The imposition of the fee is based on the itinerary at the time the transportation is sold.
Involuntary changes to the itinerary have no impact on the fee. For example, if two fees are imposed for an itinerary because of a stopover greater than four hours, but the plane departs earlier than scheduled and the break in travel becomes less than four hours, that is a change beyond the passenger's control and occurs after the air transportation is purchased. Therefore, no refund is to be provided. Similarly, if the passenger's itinerary has no breaks in travel greater than four hours, but due to weather or mechanical issues, the break is extended beyond the four hour point, it would be inappropriate for the direct air carrier or foreign air carrier to collect an additional fee for that itinerary.
Finally, TSA notes that, under 49 CFR 1510.9, the requirement to collect the fee applies to passengers of direct air carriers and foreign air carriers on scheduled passenger or public charter passenger operation with an aircraft having passenger seating configuration of more than 60 seats or a scheduled passenger or public charter passenger operation with an aircraft having a passenger seating configuration of less than 61 seats when passengers are enplaned from or deplaned into a sterile area. As a result of this provision, the fee is not imposed on passengers travelling on smaller aircraft providing air transportation directly to or from rural communities (frequently served by non-Federalized airports). TSA requests comment regarding this aspect of air transportation directly to or from a rural community.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) requires that a Federal agency consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public and, under the provisions of PRA section 3507(d), obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information it conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations.
Information collection requirements associated with the security service fee requirements of 49 CFR part 1510 have been approved by the OMB through August 31, 2015, under the PRA provisions, and assigned OMB Control Number 1652-0001. TSA has made available in the docket for this rulemaking, technical changes to its PRA documents as necessary based on the Budget Act's restructuring of the fee. The primary change is to eliminate outdated references to a per-enplanement fee. The changes will be effective beginning August 1, 2014. TSA welcomes comments on these changes and any other changes the public considers relevant to TSA's implementation of the Budget Act's amendments. TSA will consider and respond to such comments as appropriate.
The current PRA approval covers the requirements for air carriers to submit quarterly reports to TSA which provide an accounting of the fees imposed, collected, refunded to passengers, and remitted to TSA, and to retain the source information. TSA notes that this IFR does not modify these requirements, which continue to be in force.
As provided by the PRA, as amended, 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.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This rulemaking is an “economically significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. As further required by this Executive Order, OMB has reviewed this IFR and TSA has prepared an analysis of its estimated costs and benefits, presented in the following paragraphs. Table 2 presents the OMB Circular A-4 Accounting Statement for this rule.
This IFR implements an increase in the security service fee mandated by the Budget Act. As previously discussed, under this IFR direct air carriers and foreign air carriers will be required to impose a security service fee of $5.60 per one-way trip.
As discussed in the Background section of this preamble, under current regulations, the amount of the security service fee is set at $2.50 per enplanement
One-way trips have been consistently defined by TSA as any continuous travel during which a stopover does not occur (for further discussion on one-way trips and stopovers please see the section on
In Fiscal Year 2013 (FY 13), 173 direct air carriers and foreign air carriers remitted the security service fee. In order to assess the change in the fee amounts required by the Budget Act, TSA estimated collections under both fee structures and projected the number of one-way trips for ten years (FY 14 through FY 23). As the Budget Act requires the new fee structure to be implemented starting with the fourth quarter (Q4) of FY 14, our analysis considers the impacts of this IFR starting at FY 14 (Q4). TSA uses historical data on fees collected to estimate the number of chargeable enplanements for FY 14 (Q4) through FY 23.
The security service fee, as amended by the Budget Act, is expected to result in a collection of approximately $36.49 billion (undiscounted) from FY 14 (Q4) through FY 23. Table 4 shows the total in fee revenue reflecting the statutory fee increase (estimated number of one-way trips × $5.60). The estimated number of one-way trips is the sum of (a) and (b) in Table 3.
For the purposes of this analysis, TSA assumes that all one-way trips will incur a fee of $5.60 under the new fee structure. The number of one-way trips was derived using the most accurate information available. This analysis is the first instance of estimating a passenger fee imposed on one-way air transportation. As TSA has not previously collected fees on a per one-way trip basis, it is possible that the estimated number of one-way trips may differ from the actual number of fees imposed. The implementation of this IFR would provide further insight into the exact nature of travel itineraries, such as occurrence of stopovers, and will help improve revenue estimation. The analysis of actual revenue patterns under the revised fee structure will help to further improve prospective revenue estimates.
TSA estimated the change in security service fees collected by comparing estimated fees based on enplanements under the statute prior to the Budget Act (Table 3) and estimated fees based on one-way trips under the statute after the Budget Act (Table 4). The fee change will result in increased revenue of approximately $16.91 billion (undiscounted) from FY 14 (Q4) through FY 23. Table 5 compares the current fee with the fee increase mandated by the Budget Act. This fee increase will result in a transfer payment from air passengers to the Government in the form of increased fees. This transfer will increase the cost to air passengers while reducing the burden on the Government.
From
As previously discussed, section 44940 as enacted in 2001 authorized TSA to impose two fees. In addition to the fee imposed on passengers under 44940(a)(1), TSA was authorized to impose a second fee on air carriers to the extent the passenger fee was insufficient to cover TSA's costs for providing civil aviation security.
Section 601 of the Budget Act includes a July 1, 2014 implementation date for implementation of the restructured passenger fee and an October 1, 2014 implementation date for discontinuing imposition of the ASIF. As the timing of the effective date of these two requirements is separated by several months, TSA has decided to treat them as two separate rulemakings.
TSA anticipates that there might be costs associated with each direct and foreign air carrier updating their current computer and ticket sales systems to reflect the new fee structure. TSA welcomes comments containing information on the implementation costs to industry, particularly in the following areas.
• Would the burden of implementing the security service fee be a one-time cost or would there be an incremental increase in annual operating and maintenance costs as well?
• Would there be any other costs, besides labor costs, associated with the implementation?
• How many hours of labor would be needed and what category of labor (and wage) would be required to implement the changes in the system?
• Would there be multiple laborers working on the project?
• Would industry rely on their internal workforce or would they outsource this work to contractors?
• Would industries other than carriers be impacted? If so, would these impacts be short-term, or would they have lasting effects on these indirect industries?
For purposes of this regulatory impact analysis, TSA analyzed several alternatives when considering the impacts of this IFR. The Budget Act's amendments to the security service fee remove discretion from TSA regarding the amount of the fee to be imposed. As amended, 49 U.S.C. 44940(c) states that the fee “shall be $5.60 per one-way trip in air transportation or intrastate air transportation that originates at an airport in the United States.” The alternatives that TSA considered for purposes of this economic analysis are based on how the fee will be imposed. TSA was able to quantify the preferred and no action alternatives. TSA also presents a qualitative discussion and requests public comment, particularly with respect to issues related to a cap and the definition of “stopover.” Table 7 below summarizes the following regulatory alternatives:
•
•
TSA also assessed the possibility of using a break in travel greater or less than four hours for continental interstate and continental intrastate air transportation. The occurrence of a stopover triggers the beginning of a new “one-way trip,” resulting in imposition of an additional $5.60 fee on the passenger. As such, a stopover for continental interstate or continental intrastate air transportation defined as a break in travel of less than four hours could potentially lead to a larger number of fees being collected, while a stopover based on a break in travel greater than four hours (such as six or eight hours) could result in fewer fees collected, as compared to the preferred alternative. As TSA is not aware of data on the duration of breaks in travel, TSA was unable to estimate the number of one-way trips that would be affected by changes to the definition of stopovers as it affects continental interstate and intrastate air transportation, nor how this would affect fee collection. As previously noted, TSA welcomes comments on appropriate alternatives to the definition of a stopover and how any changes in this definition may impact the imposition of this fee.
For example, under the definitions in this IFR, a passenger purchasing air transportation from New York to Boston, returning to New York with less than a four hour break in travel would be subject to a fee of $5.60 because the itinerary consists of a single one-way trip. If the stopover definition for continental interstate or continental intrastate air transportation is changed to require a break in travel greater than four hours, the likelihood of this occurring would increase, resulting in less revenue for the purposes intended by 49 U.S.C. 44940. As discussed above, TSA will consider and respond to comments in the final rule, as appropriate.
Under the current fee structure, a fee cannot be imposed for more than two enplanements per one-way trip or four enplanements per round trip, regardless of the number of enplanements. Because the Budget Act requires TSA to impose fees based on one-way trips rather than enplanements, the cap provided for under the current fee structure is no longer valid. Under the definition of one-way trip in the IFR, the new structure is already capped at one fee per one-way trip. Furthermore, the statute does not specify a cap or direct TSA to implement a cap. As discussed, data on the duration of stopovers is unavailable, which makes estimating
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
TSA has, however, analyzed the UMRA requirements as if the requirement applied and determined that this IFR does not contain a Federal mandate that may reach the threshold of expenditures for State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate. To the extent the increased fee affects the overall economy, resulting in an unfunded mandate on the private sector, this is a result of the Budget Act's revisions to 49 U.S.C. 44940, not a result of this rulemaking. The preceding discussion provides an analysis of the associated costs.
Finally, TSA has not considered any alternatives as the purpose of this rulemaking is to implement the statutorily mandated fee change from $2.50 per enplanement to $5.60 per one-way trip.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is TSA policy to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. TSA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified no differences with these regulations.
The ICAO guidance document on aviation fees and charges, ICAO Document 9082 (Ninth Edition—2012), ICAO's Policies on Charges for Airports and Air Navigation Services, recommends consultations before fees are imposed on carriers. In addition, Article 12 of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America and the European Community and its Member States, signed on 25 and 30 April 2007, encourages consultation between the charging authority and affected carriers.
As the change to the security service fee has been set by Congress and there are no additional changes to how the program is implemented by TSA, no additional consultations are required.
TSA has analyzed this IFR under the principles and criteria of E.O. 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.
TSA has reviewed this action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
The energy impact of the action has been assessed in accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
Accounting, Auditing, Air carriers, Air transportation, Enforcement, Federal oversight, Foreign air carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Transportation Security Administration amends part 1510 of Chapter XII of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 114, 40113, and 44940.
This part prescribes a uniform fee to be paid by passengers of direct air carriers and foreign air carriers in air transportation, foreign air transportation, and intrastate air transportation originating at airports in the United States.
In addition to the definitions in §§ 1500.3, 1503.103, and 1540.5 of this chapter, the following terms are used in this part:
(1) Four (4) hours for continental interstate air transportation or continental intrastate air transportation, and
(2) Twelve (12) hours for non-continental interstate air transportation, non-continental intrastate air transportation, or foreign air transportation.
(a) Each direct air carrier and foreign air carrier described in § 1510.9(a) shall impose a security service fee of $5.60 per one-way trip for air transportation originating at an airport in the United States. Passengers may not be charged more than $5.60 per one-way trip.
(b) The security service fee must be imposed on passengers who obtained the ticket for air transportation with a frequent flyer award, but may not be imposed on any other nonrevenue passengers.
(a) The following direct air carriers and foreign air carriers must collect security service fees from passengers on—
(1) A scheduled passenger or public charter passenger operation with an aircraft having passenger seating configuration of more than 60 seats.
(2) A scheduled passenger or public charter passenger operation with an aircraft having a passenger seating configuration of less than 61 seats when passengers are enplaned from or deplaned into a sterile area.
(b) Direct air carriers and foreign air carriers must collect from each passenger, to the extent provided in § 1510.5, a security service fee on air transportation sold on or after 12:00 a.m. (Eastern Daylight Time) on July 21, 2014. The security service fee must be based on the air travel itinerary at the time the air transportation is sold. Any changes by the passenger to the itinerary are subject to additional collection or refund of the security service fee by the direct air carrier or foreign air carrier, as appropriate.