Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Notices 79451 

1 In particular, the written request for confidential 

treatment that accompanies the comment must 

include the factual and legal basis for the request, 

and must identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public record. See 

FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 

Account 6621, Call completion 

services; 

Account 6622, Number services; 

Account 6623, Customer services; 

Account 6561, Depreciation expensetelecommunications plant in service; 

Account 6562, Depreciation expenseproperty held for future 

telecommunications use; 

Account 6563, Amortization expensetangible; 

Account 6564, Amortization expenseintangible; and 

Account 6565, Amortization expenseother. 

These accounting changes are 

mandatory only for Class A Incumbent 

Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). The 

reinstatement of these accounts imposed 

a minor increase in burden only Class 

A ILECs only. The Commission also 

established a recordkeeping requirement 

that Class A ILECs maintain subsidiary 

record categories for unbundled 

network element revenues, resale 

revenues, reciprocal compensation 

revenues, and other interconnection 

revenues in the accounts in which these 

revenues are currently recorded. The 

use of subsidiary record categories 

allows carriers to use whatever 

mechanisms they choose, including 

those currently in place, to identify the 

relevant amounts as long as the 

information can be made available to 

state and federal regulators upon 

request. The use of subsidiary record 

categories for interconnection revenue 

does not require massive changes to the 

ILECs’ accounting systems and is a far 

less burdensome alternative than the 

creation of new accounts and/or 

subaccounts. The information submitted 

to the Commission by carriers provides 

the necessary detail to enable the 

Commission to fulfill its regulatory 

responsibilities. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Gloria J. Miles, 

Federal Register Liaison, Office of the 

Secretary, Office of Managing Director. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31178 Filed 12–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 131 0163] 

Service Corporation International, and 

Stewart Enterprises, Inc.; Analysis of 

Agreement Containing Consent Orders 

To Aid Public Comment 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement. 

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this 

matter settles alleged violations of 

federal law prohibiting unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices or unfair 

methods of competition. The attached 

Analysis of Agreement Containing 

Consent Orders to Aid Public Comment 

describes both the allegations in the 

draft complaint and the terms of the 

consent orders—embodied in the 

consent agreement—that would settle 

these allegations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 22, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a 

comment at https://

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/

scistewartconsent online or on paper, by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Write ‘‘Service Corporation 

International and Stewart Enterprises, 

Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 131 

0163’’ on your comment and file your 

comment online at https://

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/

scistewartconsent by following the 

instructions on the web-based form. If 

you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, mail or deliver your comment to 

the following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Room H–113 (Annex D), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20580. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill 

Frumin, Bureau of Competition, (202– 

326–2758), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is 

hereby given that the above-captioned 

consent agreement containing a consent 

order to cease and desist, having been 

filed with and accepted, subject to final 

approval, by the Commission, has been 

placed on the public record for a period 

of thirty (30) days. The following 

Analysis to Aid Public Comment 

describes the terms of the consent 

agreement, and the allegations in the 

complaint. An electronic copy of the 

full text of the consent agreement 

package can be obtained from the FTC 

Home Page (for December 23, 2013), on 

the World Wide Web, at http://

www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm. A paper 

copy can be obtained from the FTC 

Public Reference Room, Room 130–H, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20580, either in person 

or by calling (202) 326–2222. 

You can file a comment online or on 

paper. For the Commission to consider 

your comment, we must receive it on or 

before January 22, 2014. Write ‘‘Service 

Corporation International and Stewart 

Enterprises, Inc.—Consent Agreement; 

File No. 131 0163’’ on your comment. 

Your comment—including your name 

and your state—will be placed on the 

public record of this proceeding, 

including, to the extent practicable, on 

the public Commission Web site, at 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/

publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of 

discretion, the Commission tries to 

remove individuals’ home contact 

information from comments before 

placing them on the Commission Web 

site. 

Because your comment will be made 

public, you are solely responsible for 

making sure that your comment does 

not include any sensitive personal 

information, like anyone’s Social 

Security number, date of birth, driver’s 

license number or other state 

identification number or foreign country 

equivalent, passport number, financial 

account number, or credit or debit card 

number. You are also solely responsible 

for making sure that your comment does 

not include any sensitive health 

information, like medical records or 

other individually identifiable health 

information. In addition, do not include 

any ‘‘[t]rade secret or any commercial or 

financial information which . . . is 

privileged or confidential,’’ as discussed 

in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 

4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include 

competitively sensitive information 

such as costs, sales statistics, 

inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, 

manufacturing processes, or customer 

names. 

If you want the Commission to give 

your comment confidential treatment, 

you must file it in paper form, with a 

request for confidential treatment, and 

you have to follow the procedure 

explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 

4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept 

confidential only if the FTC General 

Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, 

grants your request in accordance with 

the law and the public interest. 

Postal mail addressed to the 

Commission is subject to delay due to 

heightened security screening. As a 

result, we encourage you to submit your 

comments online. To make sure that the 

Commission considers your online 

comment, you must file it at https://

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/

scistewartconsent by following the 

instructions on the web-based form. If 

this Notice appears at http://

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

79452 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Notices 

www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also 

may file a comment through that Web 

site. 

If you file your comment on paper, 

write ‘‘Service Corporation International 

and Stewart Enterprises, Inc.—Consent 

Agreement; File No. 131 0163’’ on your 

comment and on the envelope, and mail 

or deliver it to the following address: 

Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, Room H–113 (Annex D), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20580. If possible, submit your 

paper comment to the Commission by 

courier or overnight service. 

Visit the Commission Web site at 

http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice 

and the news release describing it. The 

FTC Act and other laws that the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. The Commission will 

consider all timely and responsive 

public comments that it receives on or 

before January 22, 2014. You can find 

more information, including routine 

uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in 

the Commission’s privacy policy, at 

http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm. 

Analysis of Agreement Containing 

Consent Orders To Aid Public Comment 

I. Introduction 

The Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has accepted for public 

comment, subject to final approval, an 

Agreement Containing Consent Orders 

(‘‘Consent Agreement’’) from Service 

Corporation International (‘‘SCI’’) and 

Stewart Enterprises, Inc. (‘‘Stewart’’). 

The purpose of the proposed Consent 

Agreement is to remedy the 

anticompetitive effects that would 

otherwise result from SCI’s acquisition 

of Stewart. Under the terms of the 

proposed Consent Agreement, SCI and 

Stewart are required to divest 53 funeral 

homes in 29 local funeral services 

markets and 38 cemeteries in 30 local 

cemetery markets to acquirers who 

receive the approval of the Commission. 

The proposed Consent Agreement also 

requires SCI and Stewart to divest all 

related assets and real property 

necessary to ensure that the buyer(s) of 

the divested facilities will be able to 

quickly and fully replicate the 

competition that would have been 

eliminated by the merger. Finally, the 

Commission, SCI, and Stewart have 

agreed to an Order to Hold Separate and 

Maintain Assets (‘‘Hold Separate 

Order’’) that requires SCI and Stewart to 

maintain and hold separate certain 

facilities to be divested pending their 

final divestiture pursuant to the Consent 

Agreement. 

The proposed Consent Agreement has 

been placed on the public record for 

thirty days (‘‘Public Comment Period’’). 

During this period, interested persons 

can review the proposed Consent 

Agreement and file comments with 

respect to the competitive effects of the 

Merger and the proposed remedy. At the 

end of the Public Comment Period, the 

Commission will review and afford 

appropriate consideration to all 

comments filed. The Commission may 

then determine whether to modify the 

proposed Consent Agreement, issue the 

Consent Agreement as final without 

modifications, or withdraw the Consent 

Agreement in its entirety. 

On May 29, 2013, SCI and Stewart 

executed a definitive merger agreement 

pursuant to which SCI agreed to acquire 

Stewart in an all-cash transaction 

valued at approximately $1.4 billion 

(the ‘‘Merger’’). The Commission’s 

complaint alleges that the proposed 

Merger, if consummated, would violate 

Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as 

amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of 

the Federal Trade Commission Act, as 

amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, removing an 

actual, direct, and substantial 

competitor from 29 funeral services 

markets, and 30 cemetery services 

markets. The proposed Consent 

Agreement would remedy the alleged 

violations by requiring divestitures to 

replace the competition that otherwise 

would be lost in these markets as a 

result of the Merger. 

II. The Parties 

SCI is the largest funeral and cemetery 

services provider in North America. SCI 

owns and operates more than 1,449 

funeral-services locations and 374 

cemeteries (including 213 combined 

funeral-services/cemetery locations), 

and 100 crematories in 44 states and the 

District of Columbia. SCI’s 2012 revenue 

from all operations totaled 

approximately $2.41 billion. 

Stewart is the second largest funeral 

and cemetery services provider in the 

United States. Stewart owns and 

operates 217 funeral homes and 141 

cemeteries in 24 states and Puerto Rico. 

For the 12 months ending October 31, 

2013, Stewart’s total revenues were 

approximately $524.1 million. 

III. Funeral and Cemetery Services 

SCI’s proposed acquisition of Stewart 

presents substantial antitrust concerns 

in two relevant product markets: (1) 

Funeral services; and (2) cemetery 

services. Funeral services include all 

activities relating to the promotion, 

marketing, sale, and provision of funeral 

services and goods, including, but not 

limited to, goods and services used to 

remove, care for, and prepare bodies for 

burial. Funeral services do not include 

cremation services because consumers 

generally do not substitute cremation 

services for burial services based upon 

price. Since many consumers primarily 

choose their final disposition based on 

their personal or religious views, these 

consumers do not view cremation 

services as a viable substitute for funeral 

services. Thus, a hypothetical 

monopolist of funeral services could 

profitably impose a small but significant 

and non-transitory increase in price 

(‘‘SSNIP’’) because most consumers 

would not switch to cremation services. 

Further, the competitive conditions for 

cremation services are substantially 

different than for funeral services. 

Cemetery services include all 

activities relating to the promotion, 

marketing, sale, and provision of 

property, goods, and services to provide 

for the disposition of human remains in 

a cemetery, whether by burial, 

entombment in a mausoleum or crypt, 

disposition in a niche, or scattering 

cremated remains on cemetery grounds. 

In some local markets, certain funeralservice and cemetery-service locations 

cater to specific populations by focusing 

on the customs and rituals associated 

with one or more religious, ethnic, or 

cultural heritage groups. In such 

situations, the provision of funeral or 

cemetery services targeted to such 

populations may constitute distinct and 

relevant product markets. Thus, in Los 

Angeles, California, for example, the 

provision of funeral services to Catholic 

consumers constitutes a relevant 

product market in which to analyze the 

competitive effects of the Merger. 

Likewise, in South Dallas, Texas, the 

provision of cemetery services to the 

African-American community 

constitutes a relevant product market in 

which to analyze the competitive effects 

of the Merger. 

The 29 funeral services markets and 

30 cemetery services markets at issue in 

this transaction are relatively local in 

nature. Indeed, data analysis and 

evidence gathered from market 

participants indicate that purchasers of 

both ‘‘preneed’’ and ‘‘atneed’’ funeral 

and cemetery services typically choose 

a local funeral home or cemetery in 

order to make the memorial service, 

burial, and subsequent visitation more 

convenient. 

The 29 geographic markets in which 

to analyze the effects of the Merger with 

respect to funeral services are: (1) 

Mobile, Alabama; (2) Auburn, 

California; (3) East Los Angeles County, 

California (Catholic); (4) Los Angeles 

(Long Beach), California (Catholic); (5) 

Los Angeles (San Fernando Valley), 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Notices 79453 

California (Catholic); (6) Palmdale/

Lancaster, California; (7) Northern San 

Diego, California; (8) Southern and 

Eastern San Diego, California; (9) 

Clearwater, Florida; (10) Jacksonville, 

Florida; (11) Miami-Dade County 

(Homestead), Florida; (12) Miami-Dade 

County (Miami), Florida; (13) Ocala, 

Florida; (14) Orlando, Florida; (15) Port 

St. Lucie, Florida; (16) Tampa, Florida 

(Hispanic); (17) Overland Park, Kansas; 

(18) South Kansas City, Kansas/

Missouri; (19) New Orleans, Louisiana; 

(20) West Jackson, Mississippi; (21) 

North Kansas City, Missouri; (22) New 

Bern, North Carolina; (23) Raleigh, 

North Carolina; (24) Columbia, South 

Carolina; (25) Nashville, Tennessee; (26) 

Dallas, Texas; (27) Southeast Fort 

Worth, Texas; (28) ArlingtonAlexandria, Virginia; and (29) 

Washington, DC/Maryland suburbs 

(Jewish). 

The 30 geographic markets in which 

to analyze the effects of the Merger with 

respect to cemetery services are: (1) 

South San Diego, California; (2) 

Jacksonville, Florida; (3) Miami-Dade 

County, Florida; (4) Ocala, Florida; (5) 

West Orlando, Florida; (6) Port St. 

Lucie, Florida; (7) Spring Hill/Hudson, 

Florida; (8) St. Petersburg/Largo, 

Florida; (9) Tampa, Florida; (10) Atlanta 

(Cobb County), Georgia; (11) Atlanta 

(Fairburn/College Park), Georgia; (12) 

Atlanta (Henry County), Georgia; (13) 

New Orleans, Louisiana; (14) Annapolis, 

Maryland; (15) Baltimore, Maryland; 

(16) North Kansas City, Missouri; (17) 

South Kansas City, Kansas/Missouri; 

(18) High Point, North Carolina; (19) 

Raleigh, North Carolina; (20) 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; (21) 

Greenville, South Carolina; (22) 

Kingsport, Tennessee; (23) Knoxville, 

Tennessee; (24) Dallas, Texas; (25) 

South Dallas, Texas (African American); 

(26) Southeast Fort Worth, Texas; (27) 

Houston, Texas; (28) Northwest 

Richmond, Virginia; (29) South 

Richmond, Virginia; and (30) 

Kearneysville, West Virginia. 

Each of the relevant funeral and 

cemetery services markets is highly 

concentrated, and the proposed Merger 

would significantly increase market 

concentration and eliminate substantial 

direct competition between two 

significant funeral and cemetery 

services providers. Under the 

Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (‘‘HHI’’), 

which is the standard measure of market 

concentration under the 2010 

Department of Justice and Federal Trade 

Commission Merger Guidelines, an 

acquisition is presumed to create or 

enhance market power or facilitate its 

exercise if it increases by more than 200 

points and results in a post-acquisition 

HHI that exceeds 2,500 points. SCI’s 

merger with Stewart creates market 

concentration levels well in excess of 

these thresholds in the local markets 

listed above. 

The anticompetitive implications of 

such significant increases are reinforced 

by evidence of intense head-to-head 

competition that would be eliminated 

by the proposed Merger. This 

competition between SCI and Stewart 

benefits consumers in the form of lower 

prices, improved products, and better 

service. Left unremedied, the proposed 

Merger likely would cause 

anticompetitive harm by enabling SCI to 

profit by unilaterally raising the prices 

of funeral and cemetery services, as well 

as reducing its incentive to improve 

quality and provide better service. 

The high levels of concentration also 

increase the likelihood of competitive 

harm through coordinated interaction. 

In several funeral and cemetery services 

markets, coordinated interaction or tacit 

collusion may be likely due to the 

transparency of important competitive 

information, high concentration, and 

relatively small number of competitors. 

New entry is unlikely to deter or 

counteract the anticompetitive effects of 

the proposed Merger. Among other 

entry barriers, both heritage (the 

consumer’s tendency to use the same 

funeral home or cemetery for multiple 

generations) and reputation pose 

substantial barriers to entrants 

attempting to establish new funeralservices locations. The availability of 

suitable land and local zoning, health, 

and environmental regulations 

significantly hinder the ability of firms 

to enter into new cemetery-services 

locations. As a result, new entry 

sufficient to achieve a significant market 

impact is unlikely to occur. 

IV. The Proposed Consent Agreement 

The proposed Consent Agreement 

remedies completely the 

anticompetitive effects of the Merger by 

requiring the divestiture of SCI or 

Stewart funeral homes, cemeteries, and 

related assets in each relevant 

geographic market to a Commissionapproved buyer (or buyers) within 180 

days of SCI acquiring Stewart. 

Specifically, the proposed Consent 

Agreement requires the divestiture of 53 

funeral-services facilities and 38 

cemeteries, as well as related 

equipment, customer and supplier 

contracts, commercial trade names, and 

real property in the funeral and 

cemetery services markets at issue in 

this transaction. The assets to be 

divested include all of the associated 

assets and real property necessary for a 

Commission-approved buyer to 

independently and effectively operate 

each facility. See Appendix A to the 

proposed Decision and Order for a 

complete list of the divestiture assets. 

The proposed Consent Agreement 

contains several provisions designed to 

ensure that the divestitures are 

successful. First, the Commission will 

evaluate the suitability of the proposed 

purchasers of the divested assets to 

ensure that the competitive 

environment that would have existed 

but for the transaction is replicated by 

the required divestitures. If SCI fails to 

divest the assets within the 180 day 

time period to a Commission-approved 

buyer, the Consent Agreement permits 

the Commission to appoint a divestiture 

trustee to divest the assets. Second, SCI 

is required to provide transitional 

services to the Commission-approved 

acquirer. These transitional services will 

facilitate a smooth transition of the 

assets to the acquirer, and ensure 

continued and uninterrupted operation 

of the assets during the transition. 

Third, the Consent Agreement requires 

SCI to remove any contractual 

impediments that may deter the current 

employees of the divested facilities from 

accepting offers of employment from 

any Commission-approved acquirer and 

to obtain all consents necessary to 

transfer the required assets. The 

Agreement also appoints a Hold 

Separate Trustee to monitor SCI’s 

compliance with the terms of the 

Agreement. Finally, the Commission 

will have an opportunity to review any 

attempt by SCI to acquire any funeral or 

cemetery services asset in any of the 

geographic markets at issue, as well as 

certain markets where any future 

acquisition by SCI would likely cause 

substantial competitive harm. This prior 

notice provision has a term of ten years. 

The Hold Separate Order requires the 

parties to maintain the viability of the 

divestiture assets as competitive 

operations until each facility is 

transferred to a Commission-approved 

acquirer. After SCI acquires Stewart, the 

Hold Separate Order requires that SCI 

segregate the 91 locations to be divested 

separate and apart from SCI’s own death 

services business, and maintain these 

assets as independent competitive 

enterprises pending divestiture. To 

facilitate this process, the Hold Separate 

Order allows Paul A. Houston, the 

proposed Hold Separate Trustee, to 

appoint one or more Hold Separate 

Managers to assist with the management 

the daily operations of the held separate 

businesses in an effort to ensure 

competition in the relevant geographic 

markets. Additionally, the Hold 

Separate Order obligates SCI to provide 

sufficient working capital to the held 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

79454 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Notices 

separate businesses and to provide 

continued support services as needed in 

the interim. Overall, the Hold Separate 

Order and the Consent Agreement are 

designed to safeguard competition in 

the provision of death care services in 

these markets immediately postacquisition. 

The sole purpose of this analysis is to 

facilitate public comment on the 

Consent Agreement. This analysis does 

not constitute an official interpretation 

of the Consent Agreement or modify its 

terms in any way. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Janice Podoll Frankle, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31153 Filed 12–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

[OMB Control No. 3090–0292; Docket No. 

2013–0001; Sequence 12] 

Information Collection; OMB Control 

No. 3090–0292; FFATA Subaward and 

Executive Compensation Reporting 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Office of the Integrated Award 

Environment, General Services 

Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Notice of request for comments 

regarding an extension to an existing 

OMB information collection. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Regulatory 

Secretariat Division will be submitting 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) a request to review and approve 

a renewal of the currently approved 

information collection requirement 

regarding FFATA Subaward and 

Executive Compensation Reporting 

Requirements. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

February 28, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by Information Collection 

3090–0292, FFATA Subaward and 

Executive Compensation Reporting 

Requirements by any of the following 

methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Submit comments via the Federal 

eRulemaking portal by searching 

‘‘Information Collection 3090–0292, 

FFATA Subaward and Executive 

Compensation Reporting Requirements’’ 

under the heading ‘‘Enter Keyword or 

ID’’ and selecting ‘‘Search’’. Select the 

link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘Information 

Collection 3090–0292, FFATA 

Subaward and Executive Compensation 

Reporting Requirements’’. Follow the 

instructions provided at the ‘‘Submit a 

Comment’’ screen. Please include your 

name, company name (if any), and 

‘‘Information Collection 3090–0292, 

FFATA Subaward and Executive 

Compensation Reporting Requirements’’ 

on your attached document. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: IC 3090– 

0292. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite Information Collection 

3090–0292, FFATA Subaward and 

Executive Compensation Reporting 

Requirements, in all correspondence 

related to this collection. All comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal and/or business 

confidential information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Stephen Berry, Program Analyst, Office 

of the Integrated Award Environment, 

GSA, at telephone number 703–605– 

2984; or via email at stephen.berry@

gsa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Purpose 

The Federal Funding Accountability 

and Transparency Act (Pub. L. 109–282, 

as amended by section 6202(a) of P.L. 

110–252), known as FFATA or the 

Transparency Act requires information 

disclosure of entities receiving Federal 

financial assistance through Federal 

awards such as Federal contracts, subcontracts, grants and sub-grants, FFATA 

2(a), (2), (i), (ii). Beginning October 1, 

2010, the currently approved Paperwork 

Reduction Act submission directed 

compliance with the Transparency Act 

to report prime and first-tier sub-award 

data. Specifically, Federal agencies and 

prime awardees of grants were to ensure 

disclosure of executive compensation of 

both prime and subawardees and subaward data pursuant to the 

Transparency Act. This information 

collection requires reporting of only the 

information enumerated under the 

Transparency Act. 

B. Public Comments 

Public comments are particularly 

invited on: Whether this collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of functions of the FFATA 

Subaward and Executive Compensation 

Reporting Requirements, whether it will 

have practical utility; whether our 

estimate of the public burden of this 

collection of information is accurate, 

and based on valid assumptions and 

methodology; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and ways in 

which we can minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, through the use of 

appropriate technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

C. Annual Reporting Burden 

Sub-award Responses: 252,382. 

Hours per Response: .5. 

Total Burden Hours: 126,191. 

Executive Compensation Responses: 

44,596. 

Hours per Response: 1. 

Total Burden Hours: 44,596. 

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: 

Requesters may obtain a copy of the 

information collection documents from 

the General Services Administration, 

Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1800 F 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, 

telephone 202–501–4755. Please cite 

OMB Control No. 3090–0292, FFATA 

Subaward and Executive Compensation 

Reporting Requirements, in all 

correspondence. 

Dated: December 18, 2013. 

Casey Coleman, 

Chief Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31169 Filed 12–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–WY–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

[OMB Control No. 3090–0291; Docket No. 

2013–0001; Sequence 11] 

Information Collection; FSRS 

Registration Requirements for Prime 

Grant Awardees 

AGENCY: Office of the Integrated Award 

Environment, General Services 

Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Notice of request for comments 

regarding an extension to an existing 

OMB clearance information collection. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Regulatory 

Secretariat Division will be submitting 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) a request to review and approve 

a renewal of the currently approved 

information collection requirement 

regarding FSRS Registration 

Requirements for Prime Grant 

Awardees. The title of the approved 

information collection is FSRS 

Registration and Prime Awardee Entitymaindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES