Agricultural Marketing Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Energy Information Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Wage and Hour Division
Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities
Federal Aviation Administration
Fiscal Service
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Final interpretive ruling and policy statement 19-1.
The NCUA Board (Board) is updating and revising its Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement (IRPS) regarding statutory prohibitions imposed by Section 205(d) of the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act). Section 205(d) prohibits, except with the prior written consent of the Board, any person who has been convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or breach of trust, or who has entered into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such offense, from participating in the affairs of an insured credit union. The Board is rescinding current IRPS 08-1 and issuing a revised and updated IRPS to reduce regulatory burden. The Board is amending and expanding the current
The final IRPS takes effect January 2, 2020.
Pamela Yu, Special Counsel to the General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-6540.
The Board recognizes that many Americans face hiring barriers due to a criminal record, a great number of which are not violent or career criminals, but rather people who made poor choices early in life who have since paid their debt to society. Offering second chances to those who are truly penitent is consistent with our nation's shared values of forgiveness and redemption. In keeping with this spirit of clemency, the Board endeavors to expand career opportunities for those who have demonstrated remorse and responsibility for past indiscretions and wish to set on a path to productive living. Toward that end, the Board is revising its guidance regarding prohibitions imposed by Section 205(d) of the FCU Act.
Section 205(d) of the FCU Act prohibits, without the prior written consent of the Board, a person convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or breach of trust, or who has entered into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such offense, from becoming or continuing as an institution-affiliated party, or otherwise participating, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of an insured credit union.
The IRPS has not been revised since 2008 and, based on its experience with the IRPS over the past decade, the Board is updating and revising the guidance to reduce regulatory burden while protecting federally insured credit unions from risk by convicted persons.
Under Section 205(d)(1) of the FCU Act, except with the prior written consent of the Board, a person who has been convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or breach of trust, or has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such offense may not:
• Become, or continue as, an institution-affiliated party with respect to any insured credit union; or
• Otherwise participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of any insured credit union.
Section 205(d)(1)(B) further provides that an insured credit union may not allow any person described above to participate in the affairs of the credit union without Board consent. Section 205(d)(2) imposes a ten-year ban against the Board's consent for a person convicted of certain crimes enumerated in Title 18 of the United States Code, absent a motion by the Board and approval by the sentencing court. Finally, Section 205(d)(3) states that “whoever knowingly violates” (d)(1)(A) or (d)(1)(B) commits a felony, punishable by up to five years in jail and a fine of up to $1,000,000 a day.
Recognizing that certain offenses are so minor and occurred so far in the past so as to not currently present a substantial risk to the insured credit union, IRPS 08-1 excludes certain
In issuing these final amendments to IRPS 08-1, the Board remains mindful of a corresponding Statement of Policy (SOP) issued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to promote consistency between the
In July 2019, the Board published and sought public comment on a proposal to expand exceptions to employment restrictions under Section 205(d).
The Board received a total of twelve comments from national credit union trade associations, state credit union associations, advocacy groups (including one joint letter representing 36 individual groups), one federal credit union, and one fidelity bond provider. The commenters generally supported the proposed IRPS and appreciated the Board's efforts to reduce regulatory burden, and to expand employment opportunities to those deserving of a second chance. The general consensus among commenters was that the proposed guidance was well-measured, balanced, and flexible and will reduce burdens on credit unions, covered individuals, and the agency, while maintaining appropriate safeguards to ensure the new exceptions do not present undue safety and soundness risks to insured credit unions. Commenters widely applauded the NCUA's efforts to expand employment opportunities for low-risk convicted persons and noted the second chance amendments are consistent with our nation's redemptive spirit. One commenter was particularly gratified that the NCUA's issuance will represent a strong message in support of second chances and act as a signal to other industries that many former offenders are worthy of the opportunity for inclusion and trust.
A joint comment letter representing numerous advocacy groups supported the proposed Second Chance IRPS overall, but asked that the NCUA go further than the proposal to adopt additional reforms and improvements to promote expanded employment opportunities for people with conviction records, including, among other things, additional expansions of the
Substantive comments on specific aspects of the proposed Second Chance IRPS are discussed in detail below. For the reasons described below, the Board is adopting the proposal with a few minor modifications.
IRPS 08-1 currently provides background regarding Section 205(d)'s prohibition, and discusses its purpose to provide requirements, direction, and guidance to federally insured credit unions and individuals covered by the statutory ban. The proposed IRPS revised the background section to make clear that IRPS 19-1 supersedes and replaces IRPS 08-1. There were no comments on this aspect of the proposal, and the Board adopts this amendment as proposed.
The proposed Second Chance IRPS modified the scope section to clarify the persons covered by the Section 205(d) prohibition. Under the statute, the prohibition applies to institution-affiliated parties, as defined by Section 206(r) of the FCU Act,
Under Section 206(r), independent contractors are considered institution-affiliated parties if they knowingly or recklessly participate in violations, unsafe or unsound practices, or breaches of fiduciary duty which are likely to cause significant loss to, or a significant adverse effect on, an insured credit union. Over the years, the definition of independent contractors in Section 206(r), which is included in IRPS 08-1, has created confusion among interested parties. Given that the term is actually unnecessary in determining whether Section 205(d) applies at the time the individual commenced work for, or participated in the affairs of, the credit union, the proposed Second Chance IRPS deleted reference to certain language in the definition of “independent contractor.” It also clarified that an independent contractor typically does not have a relationship with the insured credit union other than the specific activity for which the insured credit union has contracted, and that the relevant factor in determining whether an independent contractor is covered by Section 205(d)'s prohibition is whether the independent contractor influences or controls the management or affairs of that credit union.
A person who does not meet the statutory definition of institution-affiliated party is nevertheless prohibited by Section 205(d) if he or she is considered to be participating, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of an insured credit union. The proposed Second Chance IRPS did not precisely define what constitutes direct or indirect participation in the conduct of the affairs of an insured credit union, but rather updated and clarified how the NCUA will determine whether a person qualifies as a participant in the affairs of an insured credit union.
One commenter specifically agreed the NCUA should not expressly define who qualifies as a participant. Another commenter questioned why it is necessary for the guidance to address both institution-affiliated parties and
As noted above, the statute expressly applies the employment prohibition to institution-affiliated parties and others who are participants in the conduct of the affairs of an insured credit union. Specifically, Section 205(d) provides that except with prior written consent of the Board—
1. any person who has been convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or a breach of trust, or has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such offense, may not—
a. become, or continue as, an institution-affiliated party with respect to any insured credit union; or
b. otherwise participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of any insured credit union; and
2. any insured credit union may not permit any person referred to in paragraph (1) to engage in any conduct or continue any relationship prohibited under such paragraph.
In the Board's view, for consistency with the operative statute, it is helpful and appropriate for the guidance to continue to address both institution-affiliated parties and participants in the affairs of an insured credit union. While there may be overlap between the two, retaining reference to the two distinct statutory terms in the final IRPS will promote clarity and maintain consistency between the statute and guidance.
The Board continues to maintain that participants in the affairs of a credit union is a term of art that defies precise definition. Thus, the final Second Chance IRPS reiterates the NCUA's current position that agency and court decisions will inform its determination and that, generally, participation will depend upon the degree of influence or control over the management or affairs of the insured credit union. Each individual's conduct will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to determine if that conduct constitutes participation in the conduct of the affairs of an insured credit union.
The proposed Second Chance IRPS clarified that in order for an application to be considered by the Board, the case must be considered final by the procedures of the applicable jurisdiction. This means all of the sentencing requirements associated with a conviction or conditions imposed by the pretrial diversion or similar program, including, but not limited to, imprisonment, fines, condition of rehabilitation, and probation requirements, must be completed before the Board will deliberate a consent application. There were no comments on this aspect of the proposal, and the Board is adopting these provisions without modification.
Currently, where the covered offense is considered
The proposed Second Chance IRPS updated the general criteria for the
Commenters noted that these changes to the general criteria, while modest, will nevertheless result in a meaningful reduction in the number of applications to the Board. In particular, several commenters indicated that simply amending criterion 2 from “less than one year” to “one year or less” will result in significant regulatory relief. Commenters also agreed the increase in the dollar threshold better aligns with criminal reform and sentencing guidelines. One commenter was supportive overall of the proposed amendments to the general criteria for the
The proposed IRPS also added a definition of “jail time” to clarify that the term includes any significant restraint on an individual's freedom of movement, including confinement to a specific facility or building on a continuous basis where the person may leave temporarily only to perform specific functions or during specified time periods or both.
One commenter specifically supported the proposed definition of jail time. However, another comment letter expressed concerns that the proposal's definition would include time served in pretrial confinement, for civil infractions, or in home confinement since these penalties impose a “significant restraint on an individual's freedom of movement.” As one example, the comment letter noted low-risk individuals who had their freedom of movement restricted for failure to pay a traffic fine would fall outside of the exception because of the more expansive proposed definition. Thus, this comment letter recommended the Board retain the current language relative to jail time. Another commenter suggested the definition of jail time should include probation if probation was the only confinement imposed as part of an individual's punishment.
After a review and analysis of the comments, the Board is adopting this aspect of the guidance unchanged in the final Second Chance IRPS. The Board anticipates the measured changes to criterion 2 of the general
The Board also adopts the proposed definition of “jail time” without modification. As discussed in the
Most commenters were very supportive of the expansion of the current
As described in more detail below, the Board generally adopts the new qualifying offenses for
One commenter generally supported this proposed change, but urged the Board to go further by also modifying the other general criteria applying to offenses committed prior to the age of 21, namely, that the offense be punishable by a jail term of less than one year or a fine of less than $2,500.
The Board declines this recommendation. While this measured exception is intended to recognize that isolated, youthful mistakes are particularly worthy of forgiveness and second chances, the Board remains mindful of its safety and soundness mandate. Reducing by half the passage of time required for individuals with a minor youthful conviction to qualify for the exception provides meaningful relief while still appropriately mitigating risks to insured credit unions posed by convicted persons. Accordingly, the Board is adopting the age-based
• Other than for “bad” or insufficient funds check(s), there is no other conviction or pretrial diversion program entry subject to Section 205(d);
• The aggregate total face value of all “bad” or insufficient funds check(s) cited across all the conviction(s) or program entry or entries for bad or insufficient checks is $1,000 or less; and
• No insured depository institution or insured credit union was a payee on any of the “bad” or insufficient funds checks that were the basis of the conviction(s) or program entry or entries.
One commenter expressed concern with the proposed exception for offenses involving insufficient funds checks and asked that the Board readjust the qualifying aggregate total face value amount. The same commenter also suggested this exception category should be revised to impose a qualifying timeframe (
The Board agrees that covered individuals with convictions or program entries for crimes involving financial institutions may pose risks to insured credit unions, regardless of the financial institution's insurance status. After careful review, the Board maintains that no offense category should be included in the
• The aggregate value of the currency, goods, and/or services taken was $500 or less at the time of conviction or program entry; and
• The person has no other conviction or program entry described in Section 205(d); and
• It has been five years since the conviction or program entry (or 30 months in the case of a person 21 years or younger at the time of the conviction or program entry); and
• It does not involve an insured depository institution or insured credit union.
For purposes of the exception, simple theft did not include the offenses of burglary, forgery, robbery, identity theft, or fraud. Under the proposal, these crimes continued to require an application for the Board's consent, unless otherwise qualifying as
Stakeholders providing comment on this aspect of the proposed IRPS generally supported the exception for small-dollar, simple theft. Several commenters supported the express exclusion of burglary, forgery, robbery, identity theft, and fraud from the exception and agreed those offenses should continue to require an application for the Board's consent. Several commenters asked the Board to clarify that all of the stated conditions must be met in order for the exception to apply. A number of commenters also asked the Board to confirm and emphasize in the final IRPS that simple theft, of any value, involving a depository institution or credit union falls outside the
One comment letter was generally in favor of an exception for simple theft, but contended the practical application of the proposed exception is limited because most simple theft convictions involving $500 or less are likely already covered as
Upon careful consideration of the public comments, the Board continues to take the view that the exception is appropriately tailored to streamline the application process without creating undue or substantial risk to insured credit unions, and declines to expand it further at this time to include additional offenses. Accordingly, the final Second Chance IRPS adopts the small-dollar, simple theft exception largely as proposed. A conviction or pretrial diversion program entry based on a simple theft of goods, services and/or currency (or other monetary instrument) is considered
All commenters that provided feedback on this aspect of the proposal were supportive of the exception and agreed that individuals with convictions or program entries for the use of a fake identification card pose little risk to insured credit unions. Accordingly, the Board adopts as proposed the provision allowing
As discussed in the proposed Second Chance IRPS, there are already a host of significant extrajudicial consequences for individuals with nonviolent drug possession convictions, including not only employment bans but the loss of federal financial aid, eviction from public housing, disqualification from occupational licenses, loss of voting rights, and denial of public assistance. Moreover, research shows that drug convictions disproportionately burden people of color. In addition, the Board recognizes that some uncertainty and confusion exists with respect to marijuana-related offenses, with marijuana now legal in many states but still illegal at the federal level.
Accordingly, the proposed Second Chance IRPS also classified as
• The person has no other conviction or program entry described in Section 205(d); and
• The single conviction or program entry for simple possession of a controlled substance was classified as a misdemeanor and did not involve the illegal distribution (including an intent to distribute), sale, trafficking, or manufacture of a controlled substance or other related offense; and
• It has been five years since the conviction or program entry (or 30 months in the case of a person 21 years or younger at the time of the conviction or program entry).
Under the proposal, convictions or program entries for intent to distribute, illegal distribution, illegal sale or trafficking of a controlled substance, or illegal manufacture of a controlled substance continued to require an application for the Board's consent, unless otherwise qualifying as
Most commenters that provided input on this part of the proposed Second
One comment letter, however, recommended the Board more broadly expand the exception to include most drug convictions (beyond simple possession), arguing that drug offenses are not criminal offenses involving dishonesty or breach of trust that should be covered by Section 205(d). The comment letter urged the Board to eliminate the requirement to request consent for persons with a conviction or program entry for any drug possession offense (
After careful review of the comments, the Board maintains that an application should be required for most drug offenses so it can determine the nature of the offense and elements of the crime; thus, it will continue the current requirement that an application be filed for drug offenses that do not qualify as
One commenter noted that, historically, insurers have increased premiums where an employee has a theft or fraud conviction; thus, some credit unions are concerned about their ability to obtain insurance coverage for covered individuals. This commenter asked the NCUA to weigh the costs and benefits of requiring a fidelity bond for individuals that meet the
Several commenters expressed some degree of concern that increasing the number of excepted offenses not requiring application could ultimately lead to increased theft or fraud, thereby resulting in increased insurance costs to credit unions (costs that ultimately would be borne by members). However, most of those commenters shared the view that this is a fairly remote possibility and, at least in the short-term, no immediate premium increases are likely to result from the proposed IRPS. Commenters noted that if such a result were to occur, the Board should revisit the IRPS to determine if it should be modified.
Comments from one insurer that provides fidelity bond coverage to credit unions were particularly helpful on this point. Specifically, the commenter indicated that, while the full implications of the proposal may not be known for several years, it currently does not anticipate any immediate premium adjustments for credit unions to result from the proposed changes. The commenter noted, however, that beyond fidelity bond coverage, there could be potential future impacts for risk management services provided to credit unions, as well as business auto and business liability coverages, as new general, safety concerns may arise. This commenter also indicated that, as a fidelity insurer, it will reexamine its own
The Board continues to maintain that any person who meets the
Commenters generally indicated the proposal's clarifications regarding expunged convictions were helpful. Several commenters were particularly supportive of the clarification regarding state set-aside provisions as it is sometimes unclear whether those
One comment letter, however, recommended that all expungements be treated as complete expungements for purposes of Section 205(d), regardless of whether the conviction or program entry can subsequently be used for an evaluation of the person's fitness or character. The same comment letter opposed the proposal's clarification regarding state set-aside provisions, interpreting the proposed clarification as creating a new expansion of the Section 205(d) consent requirements to now cover individuals with set aside or reversed convictions where there was not a finding of wrongful conviction.
The Board is adopting this aspect of the proposed guidance unchanged in the final Second Chance IRPS. It notes that its decision to add clarifying language regarding expunged convictions to the Second Chance IRPS is intended to promote transparency in the consent application process and, thereby, to streamline the process and give a measure of regulatory relief to covered individuals and insured credit unions seeking consent from the Board. While the Board acknowledges that making policy clarifications may actually result in a temporary spike in applications (due to an increased awareness of the Section 205(d) employment restrictions generally and/or greater awareness of what constitutes a conviction of record specifically), the Board does not view the clarifying language regarding expunged convictions to represent an expansion of the Section 205(d) consent requirements to cover individuals with set aside or reversed convictions who were not previously covered under IRPS 08-1. Indeed, prior Board decisions on Section 205(d) consent requests have found that certain state set-aside provisions are not the equivalent of an expungement within the meaning of IRPS 08-1, as the conviction may still be revealed under certain circumstances.
Further, the Board does not consider it appropriate to treat all expungements, set asides, reversed convictions, or other similar case dispositions as complete expungements for purposes of Section 205(d). State law varies and, in some jurisdictions, an expungement is not “complete” and is still subject to subsequent use. In the Board's view, expungements that reflect the intent of the particular jurisdiction to completely purge a conviction or program entry from an individual's background records supports an interpretation that, from a legal and policy perspective, the intent is to place the individual in the same position as if there were no conviction or program entry in the first place. However, an expunged criminal record that is still accessible to be used for subsequent purposes, including an evaluation of the person's fitness or character, reflects the jurisdiction's public policy that that record is still relevant and germane to certain subsequent inquiries. In considering whether an expungement is one that should fall outside the scope of Section 205(d), the Board's key consideration is whether the respective jurisdiction, by statute or court order, intended for the conviction or program entry to be fully purged from the individual's background. Preservation in a jurisdiction's expungement statute or by court order of the ability to use the conviction or program entry for a subsequent purpose indicates the record has not been completely expunged. Under these circumstances, the Board's interpretation is the conviction or program entry comes within the scope of Section 205(d). Again, however, the Board reiterates that covered individuals with expunged convictions or program entries still qualifying as convictions or record for purposes of Section 205(d) may still apply to the NCUA for the Board's consent.
Section 205(d) imposes a duty upon every federally insured credit union to make a reasonable inquiry regarding the history of every applicant for employment, including taking appropriate steps to avoid hiring or permitting the participation of convicted persons. Under the NCUA's current policy, federally insured credit unions should, at a minimum, establish a screening process to obtain information about convictions and program entries from job applicants. However, the current policy is unclear as to what steps a credit union should or must take when it learns about a job applicant's
Comments on this aspect of the proposal were generally positive. A number of commenters, however, asked for reassurance that a credit union's failure to maintain a record that an application is not necessary because the
The Board emphasizes that while the source of the consent requirements stem from federal statute, namely Section 205(d), this final IRPS is supervisory guidance, not regulation. The NCUA, along with the other federal prudential regulators, in 2018 issued an interagency statement to reaffirm the role of supervisory guidance.
The Board wishes to underscore that documentation of an employee's or applicant's
The Board encourages industry to offer second chances and to expand employment opportunities for former offenders seeking redemptive paths forward, but no insured credit union is under any obligation to hire or retain an
One commenter was skeptical of the practical benefit of this provision, if the credit union does not have a reasonable expectation of the timing of the approval process. Thus, the commenter recommended the Board clarify in the final IRPS the general length of time necessary for the agency to process a consent application. One comment letter urged the Board to instruct credit unions to inquire into an applicant's criminal background only after the conditional offer stage of the hiring process, to safeguard against credit unions unfairly discarding the applications of people with conviction histories. Alternatively, at a minimum, this comment letter urged that the Board clarify credit unions are not required to make criminal record inquiries on an initial job application and may adopt a policy to collect criminal background history only after the conditional offer stage (
The Board is mindful that the Section 205(d) consent application process may impose inconveniences and uncertainties to covered individuals and credit unions, as both applicant and employer remain in indeterminate state during the process of seeking consent from the Board. While the industry's desire for certainty as to the timing of the consent application process is understandable, the Board maintains it is impracticable to establish a timetable for action on consent applications because each individual application is fact specific and varies in complexity. However, past applications submitted to the Board have generally been adjudicated within 60 days from receipt, and, in most cases, the processing time was significantly less. The Board remains committed to streamlining the application process and endeavors to decide on consent applications as quickly as possible. The Board anticipates that its decision to delegate responsibility for reviewing certain applications, discussed in more detail below, will further speed up the application process and reduce burdens on credit unions and applicants.
The Board also reiterates that insured credit unions are responsible for establishing their own internal employment policies and have discretion to make hiring decisions in their best judgment. The proposal's provision for extensions of conditional offers of employment to prospective employees requiring the Board's consent under Section 205(d) was intended to reduce burdens in the hiring and consent application process; accordingly, the Board is adopting this provision in the final Second Chance IRPS. An insured credit union choosing to adopt a policy to extend conditional offers may establish its own procedures to make criminal record inquiries at any stage of its choosing in its hiring process, so long as applicants do not commence work for or be employed by the credit union until the applicant is determined to not be barred under Section 205(d) or receives consent from the Board.
One comment letter urged the Board to go further than the proposal to expressly encourage individuals to directly file applications in their own right, rather than requiring that a credit union sponsor the application. This letter noted that while the FDIC's Statement of Policy (SOP) on Section 19 contains similar “substantial good cause” language, in practice the FDIC routinely accepts individual applications and the vast majority of applications it processes are not sponsored by a financial institution.
The Board notes that both credit union-sponsored applications and individual applications were permitted under IRPS 08-1 and both options will continue to be available under this final IRPS. While historically consent applications submitted to the NCUA are more typically credit union-sponsored, individuals are not precluded from filing an application in their own right if there is substantial good cause. In the Board's view, highlighting the distinction between individual applications and credit union-sponsored applications in the final Second Chance IRPS may help encourage more individuals to apply for consent without sponsorship by a credit union. The NCUA also intends to publish in the near term an informational brochure to further educate the public about the Section 205(d) process and will highlight the two different application options.
One comment letter urged the NCUA to consider creating a central office to accept and review Section 205(d) consent applications and to be a resource to credit unions seeking to verify that covered individuals have received the Board's consent to work. The comment letter further suggested that this centralized office could be delegated the responsibility to only forward applications for Board review that significantly merit additional scrutiny.
Historically, the Board has received less than ten Section 205(d) consent applications on an annual basis. Given this relatively low volume, it is
One commenter was strongly supportive of delegating authority to regional directors to consider 205(d) consent applications, noting that such delegation will likely ensure a more timely response given the region's greater understanding of any relevant local factors or information that may be pertinent to the decision. The same commenter, however, recommended the Board establish a reasonable timeframe for the region's response so that applications are processed expeditiously. One comment letter agreed that delegating responsibility for reviewing certain applications would help streamline the process, but suggested responsibility should be delegated to a central office specifically created to accept and review Section 205(d) applications. A different commenter was not opposed to delegating the review of certain applications, but expressed concern that delegation to third-party entities could compromise sensitive credit union information. This commenter urged the agency to institute proper data security protocols, and requested additional information on the process of delegation, including efforts the NCUA will take to protect sensitive credit union and individual applicant data.
Upon review and careful consideration of the public comments, the Board has determined that in order to further streamline the application process it will delegate authority to program offices to process, review, and act upon credit union-sponsored consent applications. But the Board will retain authority to decide on individual applications, which tend to be more complex and fact-specific. Individual applications also require the Board's waiver of the institution filing requirement for substantial good cause and, typically, request a blanket waiver for the applicant to be employed or participate in the conduct of the affairs of any insured credit union. These factors support the Board's retention of its authority to consider individual applications for Section 205(d) consent.
However, in delegating responsibility for reviewing credit union-sponsored applications, the Board wishes to assure stakeholders that the NCUA will make all reasonable efforts to duly secure all sensitive information it receives in connection with any consent application. Toward that end, the NCUA has conducted a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) on the Second Chance IRPS. Sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) is encrypted if shared intra-agency and data is stored on secured drives with restricted access. The Board does not anticipate that PII will generally be shared outside the agency, however, the NCUA's Office of Continuity and Security Management may conduct criminal background checks that may require contacting a federal, state, or local agency which maintains civil, criminal or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information relevant to the Board's decision on a Section 205(d) consent request.
The proposed Second Chance IRPS also revised and updated the application form that is required to be used to submit a Section 205(d) consent request, “Application to Request Consent Pursuant to Section 205(d),” to reflect the proposed changes and to conform to current regulatory requirements. The Section 205(d) application form was also modified to more clearly delineate between the two types of applications (credit union-sponsored versus individual) and the supporting documentation required for each.
Stakeholders who commented on this aspect of the proposal were generally supportive of the proposed edits to the Section 205(d) application form. One commenter, however, noted some credit unions have found the current information requested to be lengthy and onerous to both the credit union and the covered individual, particularly in cases where background information is difficult to obtain from old criminal record systems. Another commenter urged the Board to go further in more expressly encouraging covered individuals to submit individual applications.
Upon review of the comments, the Board is adopting the improvements to the Section 205(d) application form in the final Second Chance IRPS. The revised application form will more clearly delineate between the two application options, which will make it more user friendly and may encourage more applicants to file individual applications for blanket waivers.
While the Board recognizes it may be difficult to obtain older records pertaining to offenses that occurred long ago, it remains incumbent on the applicant to provide pertinent documentation to support the application in order for the NCUA to properly evaluate the merits of the consent request. The purpose of an application is to provide the applicant an opportunity to demonstrate that, notwithstanding the statutory employment restrictions under Section 205(d), the individual is fit to participate in the conduct of the affairs of an insured credit union without posing undue risks to its safety and soundness or impairing public confidence in the insured credit union. The Board maintains that the information requested on the application form is the minimum amount necessary for the agency to gain an understanding of the circumstances surrounding the conviction or program entry and to evaluate all the relevant factors and criteria the NCUA will consider in determining whether to grant consent. Finally, the Board reiterates that the burden remains upon the applicant to establish that the application warrants approval.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires the NCUA to prepare an analysis of any significant economic impact a regulation may have on a substantial number of small entities (those with less than $100 million in assets).
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests.
The NCUA has determined that this final IRPS will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)
12 U.S.C. 1752a, 1756, 1766, 1785.
The following text will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
This Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement (IRPS) provides requirements, direction, and guidance to federally insured credit unions (insured credit unions) and individuals regarding the prohibition imposed by operation of law by Section 205(d) of the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act), 12 U.S.C. 1785(d). Section 205(d)(1) provides that, except with the prior written consent of the National Credit Union Administration Board (Board), a person who has been convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or breach of trust, or has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such offense may not:
• Become, or continue as, an institution-affiliated party with respect to any insured credit union; or
• Otherwise participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of any insured credit union.
Section 205(d)(1)(B) further provides that an insured credit union may not allow any person described above to engage in any conduct or to continue any relationship prohibited by Section 205(d). The statute imposes a ten-year ban against the Board granting consent for a person convicted of certain crimes enumerated in Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the Board to grant consent during the ten-year period, the Board must file a motion with, and obtain the approval of, the sentencing court. Finally, Section 205(d)(3) states that “whoever knowingly violates” (d)(1)(A) or (d)(1)(B) is committing a felony, punishable by up to five years in jail and a fine of up to $1,000,000 a day.
This IRPS provides guidance to credit unions and individuals regarding who is subject to the prohibition provision of Section 205(d). The IRPS defines what offenses come within the prohibition provision of Section 205(d) and thus require an application for the Board's consent to participate in the affairs of an insured credit union. The IRPS also identifies certain offenses that will be excluded from Section 205(d) and do not require the Board's consent. In order to assist those who may need the consent of the Board to participate in the affairs of an insured credit union, the IRPS explains the procedures to request such consent, specifies the application form that must be used, clarifies the duty imposed on credit unions by Section 205(d), and identifies the factors the Board will consider in deciding whether to provide such consent. Finally, the IRPS explains how an applicant may appeal a decision by the Board denying an application for its consent. This IRPS supersedes and replaces former IRPS 08-1.
Section 205(d) of the FCU Act applies to institution-affiliated parties, as defined by Section 206(r) of the FCU Act, 12 U.S.C. 1786(r), and others who are participants in the conduct of the affairs of a federally insured credit union. This IRPS applies only to insured credit unions, their institution-affiliated parties, and those participating in the affairs of an insured credit union.
Institution-affiliated parties include any committee member, director, officer, or employee of, or agent for, and insured credit union; any consultant, joint venture partner, and any other person as determined by the Board (by regulation or on a case-by-case basis) who participates in the conduct of the affairs of an insured credit union; or any independent contractor (including any attorney, appraiser, or accountant). Therefore, all officials, committee members and employees of an insured credit union fall within the scope of Section 205(d) of the FCU Act. Additionally, anyone the NCUA determines to be a
A person who does not meet the definition of institution-affiliated party is nevertheless prohibited by Section 205(d) if he or she is considered to be participating, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of an insured credit union. Whether persons who are not institution-affiliated parties are covered depends upon their degree of influence or control over the management or affairs of an insured institution. Those who exercise major policymaking functions of an insured institution are deemed participants in the affairs of that institution and covered by Section 205(d). Participants in the affairs of a credit union is a term of art and is not capable of more precise definition. The NCUA does not define what constitutes participation in the conduct of the affairs of an insured credit union but will analyze each individual's conduct on a case-by-case basis and make a determination. Agency and court decisions will provide the guide as to what standards will be applied. As a general proposition, however, participation will depend upon the degree of influence or control over the management or affairs of the insured credit union. Those who exercise major policymaking functions at an insured credit union fall within this category.
Except as indicated in subsection 3, below, an application requesting the consent of the Board under Section 205(d) is required where any adult, or minor treated as an adult, has received a conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction for any criminal offense involving dishonesty or breach of trust (a covered offense), or where such person has entered a pretrial diversion or similar program regarding a covered offense. Before an application is considered by the Board, all of the sentencing requirements associated with a conviction or conditions imposed by the pretrial diversion or similar program, including but not limited to, imprisonment, fines, condition of rehabilitation, and probation requirements, must be completed, and the case must be considered final by the procedures of the applicable jurisdiction. The following definitions apply:
“Dishonesty” means directly or indirectly to cheat or defraud; to cheat or defraud for monetary gain or its equivalent; or wrongfully to take property belonging to another in violation of any criminal statute. Dishonesty includes acts involving want of integrity, lack of probity, or a disposition to distort, cheat, or act deceitfully or fraudulently, and may include crimes which federal, state or local laws define as dishonest.
“Breach of trust” means a wrongful act, use, misappropriation or omission with respect to any property or fund which has been committed to a person in a fiduciary or official capacity, or the misuse of one's official or fiduciary position to engage in a wrongful act, use, misappropriation or omission.
Whether a crime involves dishonesty or breach of trust will be determined from the statutory elements of the crime itself. All convictions or pretrial diversion program entries for offenses concerning the illegal manufacture, sale, distribution of or trafficking in controlled substances require an application for the Board's consent under Section 205(d) unless they fall within the provisions for the
• There is only one conviction or entry into a pretrial diversion program of record for a covered offense;
• The offense was punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year or less and/or a fine of $2,500 or less, and the individual served three (3) days or less of jail time. The Board considers jail time to include any significant restraint on an individual's freedom of movement which includes, as part of the restriction, confinement to a specific facility or building on a continuous basis where the person may leave temporarily only to perform specific functions or during specified time periods or both. However, this definition is not intended to include those on probation or parole who may be restricted to a particular jurisdiction, or who must report occasionally to an individual or to a specified location;
• The conviction or pretrial diversion program was entered at least five years prior to the date an application would otherwise be required;
• The offense did not involve a depository institution or credit union; and
• The Board or any other federal financial institution regulatory agency has not previously denied consent under Section 205(d) of the FCU Act or Section 19 of the FDIA, respectively, for the same conviction or participation in a pretrial diversion program.
• Other than for “bad” or insufficient funds check(s), there is no other conviction or pretrial diversion program entry subject to Section 205(d) and the aggregate total face value of all “bad” or insufficient funds check(s) cited across all the conviction(s) or program entry or
• No depository institution or credit union was a payee on any of the “bad” or insufficient funds checks that were the basis of the conviction(s) or program entry or entries.
Any person who meets all of the foregoing
Any person who meets all the foregoing criteria for a
Further, no conviction or pretrial diversion program entry for a violation of the Title 18 sections set out in 12 U.S.C. 1785(d)(2) can qualify under any of the
Insured credit unions are responsible for establishing their own internal employment policies and have discretion to make hiring decisions, consistent with applicable law, that best suit their own individual needs and risk tolerance. However, Section 205(d) imposes a duty upon every insured credit union to make a reasonable inquiry regarding the history of every applicant for employment. The NCUA maintains that inquiry should consist of taking steps appropriate under the circumstances, consistent with applicable law, to avoid hiring or permitting participation in its affairs by a person who has a conviction or entry into a pretrial diversion program for a covered offense. At a minimum, each insured credit union should establish a screening process which provides the insured credit union with information concerning any convictions or pretrial diversion programs pertaining to a job applicant. This includes, for example, the completion of a written employment application which requires a listing of all convictions and pretrial diversion program entries.
If an insured credit union discovers that an employee, official, or anyone
Section 205(d) of the FCU Act serves, by operation of law, as a statutory bar to participation in the affairs of an insured credit union, absent the written consent of the Board. When an application for the Board's consent under Section 205(d) is required, the insured credit union must file a written application using the attached form with the appropriate NCUA regional office. The purpose of an application is to provide the applicant an opportunity to demonstrate that, notwithstanding the bar, the person is fit to participate in the conduct of the affairs of an insured credit union without posing a risk to its safety and soundness or impairing public confidence in that institution. Such an application should thoroughly explain the circumstances surrounding the conviction or pretrial diversion program. The applicant may also address the relevant factors and criteria the Board will consider in determining whether to grant consent, specified below. The burden is upon the applicant to establish that the application warrants approval.
The application must be filed by an insured credit union on behalf of a person (credit union-sponsored application) unless the Board grants a waiver of that requirement and allows the person to file an application in their own right (individual application). Such waivers will be considered on a case-by-case basis where substantial good cause for granting a waiver is shown. The appropriate regional office for a credit union-sponsored application is the program office that oversees the credit union (
When an application is not required because the covered offense is considered
The essential criteria in assessing an application for consent under Section 205(d) are whether the person has demonstrated his or her fitness to participate in the conduct of the affairs of an insured credit union, and whether the employment, affiliation, or participation by the person in the conduct of the affairs of the insured credit union may constitute a threat to the safety and soundness of the institution or the interests of its members or threaten to impair public confidence in the insured credit union.
In evaluating an application, the Board will consider:
1. The conviction or pretrial diversion program entry and the specific nature and circumstances of the covered offense;
2. Evidence of rehabilitation, including the person's reputation since the conviction or pretrial diversion program entry, the person's age at the time of conviction or program entry, and the time which has elapsed since the conviction or program entry;
3. Whether participation, directly or indirectly, by the person in any manner in the conduct of the affairs of the insured credit union constitutes a threat to the safety or soundness of the insured credit union or the interest of its members, or threatens to impair public confidence in the insured credit union;
4. The position to be held or the level of participation by the person at the insured credit union;
5. The amount of influence and control the person will be able to exercise over the management or affairs of the insured credit union;
6. The ability of management of the insured credit union to supervise and control the person's activities;
7. The applicability of the insured institution's fidelity bond coverage to the person;
8. For state-chartered, federally insured credit unions, the opinion or position of the state regulator; and
9. Any additional factors in the specific case that appear relevant.
The foregoing criteria will also be applied by the Board to determine whether the interests of justice are served in seeking an exception in the appropriate court when an application is made to terminate the ten-year ban for certain enumerated offenses in violation of Title 18 of the United States Code prior to its expiration date. The NCUA believes such requests will be extremely rare and will be made only upon a showing of compelling reasons.
Some applications can be approved without an extensive review because the person will not be in a position to present any substantial risk to the safety and soundness of the insured credit union. Persons who will occupy clerical, maintenance, service or purely administrative positions generally fall into this category. A more detailed analysis will be performed in the case of persons who will be in a position to influence or control the management or affairs of the insured credit union. Approval by the Board will be subject to the condition that the person shall be covered by a fidelity bond to the same extent as others in similar positions.
In cases in which the Board has granted a waiver of the credit union-sponsored filing requirement to allow a person to file an application in their own right, approval of the application will be conditioned upon that person disclosing the presence of the conviction(s) or program entry or entries to all insured credit unions or insured depository institutions in the affairs of which he or she wishes to participate. When deemed appropriate, credit union-sponsored applications are to allow the person to work in a specific job at a specific credit union and may also be subject to the condition that the prior consent of the Board will be required for any proposed significant changes in the person's duties and/or responsibilities. Such proposed changes may, in the discretion of the appropriate Regional Director, require a new application for the Board's consent. When approval has been granted for a person to participate in the affairs of a particular insured credit union and subsequently that person seeks to participate in the affairs of another insured credit union, approval does not automatically follow. In such cases, another application must be submitted. Moreover, any person who has received consent from the Board under Section 205(d) and subsequently wishes to become an institution-affiliated party or participate in the affairs of an FDIC-insured institution, he or she must obtain the prior approval of the FDIC pursuant to Section 19 of the FDIA.
If a consent application is denied under Section 205(d), the insured credit union (or, in the case where a good-cause waiver has been granted, the individual that submitted the application) may request a hearing by submitting a written request within 30 days following the date of notification of the denial. The Board will apply the process contained in regulations governing prohibitions based on felony convictions, found at 12 CFR part 747, to any request for a hearing.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 212-3966.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
This action contains a correction to the final rule published on May 10, 2019, to establish the harvest specifications and management measures for the 2019 Pacific whiting fishery under the authority of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the Pacific Whiting Act of 2006. This action restores language inadvertently omitted from the final rule that explains that NMFS will consider Chinook salmon bycatch and bycatch rates prior to reapportionment of the tribal Pacific whiting allocation. These corrections are necessary to restore this language so that the regulations accurately implement the National Marine Fisheries Service's intent, as described in the preamble to the final rule.
Effective December 2, 2019.
Stacey Miller (West Coast Region, NMFS), phone: 503-231-6290, and email:
NMFS published a final rule on May 10, 2019 (84 FR 20578), that implemented the 2019 harvest specifications and management measures for Pacific whiting harvested in the U.S. exclusive economic zone off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California. The final rule inadvertently omitted regulatory language explaining that NMFS will consider the level of Chinook bycatch and bycatch rates prior to determining reapportionment of the treaty tribes' whiting to the non-treaty sectors. This action is required under Terms of Conditions 2.c. of the 2017 ESA section 7(a)(2) biological opinion on the effects of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan on salmonids. The proposed rule (84 FR 9471) published on March 15, 2019, contained this language and the preamble and response to comment in the final rule discussed the reconsideration in detail. This correction action restores the inadvertently omitted regulatory text.
This correction is consistent with NMFS action for the 2019 Pacific whiting harvest specifications and is a minor correction to correctly implement NMFS intent in their final action taken in May 2019.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) finds there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for additional public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be unnecessary and contrary to public interest. Providing prior notice and the opportunity for additional public comment is unnecessary because the public received notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule (84 FR 9471), including this regulatory text. This correcting amendment reinstates the regulatory text that was inadvertently omitted from the final rule that published on May 10, 2019 (84 FR 20578). If the rule was delayed to allow for prior notice and an additional opportunity for public comment, it would cause confusion because the public and fishery participants believe that the omitted text is already included in the regulations. Additionally, public comment and notice would be contrary to the public interest because immediate correction of the error is necessary to manage the Pacific whiting stock to optimal yield,
For the same reasons stated above, the AA has determined good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This notice only makes a minor correction to the final rule, which was effective May 10, 2019. Delaying effectiveness of this correction would result in conflicts in the regulations and confusion among fishery participants.
Because prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be provided for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866. This final rule was developed after meaningful consultation with the tribal representative on the Council who has agreed with the provisions that apply to tribal vessels.
Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian Fisheries.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is corrected as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(h) * * *
(4) Estimates of the portion of the tribal allocation that will not be used by the end of the fishing year will be based on the best information available to the Regional Administrator.
(i) Salmon bycatch. This fishery may be closed through automatic action at § 660.60(d)(1)(v) and (vi).
(ii) [Reserved]
(5) Prior to reapportionment, NMFS will consider Chinook salmon take numbers and bycatch rates in each sector of the Pacific whiting fishery, in order to prevent a reapportionment that would limit Pacific Coast treaty Indian Tribes' access to the tribal allocation by triggering inseason closure of the Pacific whiting fishery as described at § 660.60(d)(1)(v).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
Through this final rule, NMFS is implementing allowable catch levels, an overfishing limit, an allowable biological catch, and an annual catch limit for Pacific mackerel in the U.S. exclusive economic zone off the West Coast (California, Oregon and Washington) for the fishing seasons 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, pursuant to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan. The harvest guideline and annual catch target for the 2019-2020 fishing season are 11,109 metric tons (mt) and 10,109 mt, respectively. The harvest guideline and annual catch target for the 2020-2021 fishing season are 7,950 mt and 6,950 mt, respectively. If the fishery attains the annual catch target in either fishing season, the directed fishery will close, reserving the 1,000-mt difference between the harvest guideline and annual catch target as a set-aside for incidental landings in other Coastal Pelagic Species fisheries and other sources of mortality. This rule is intended to conserve and manage the Pacific mackerel stock off the U.S. West Coast.
Effective January 2, 2020.
Copies of the report, “Pacific Mackerel Stock Assessment for U.S. Management in 2019-2020 and 2020-2021” may be obtained from the Long Beach NMFS office or viewed at the following website:
Lynn Massey, West Coast Region, NMFS,
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801
The purpose of this final rule is to implement these harvest specifications,
The Council has recommended, and NMFS is implementing, Pacific mackerel harvest specifications for both the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 fishing seasons. For the 2019-2020 Pacific mackerel fishing season these include an OFL of 14,931 mt, an ABC and ACL of 13,169 mt, a HG of 11,109 mt, and an annual ACT of 10,109 mt. For the 2020-2021 Pacific mackerel fishing season these include an OFL of 11,772 mt, and ABC and ACL of 10,289 mt, a HG of 7,950 mt, and an ACT of 6,950 mt. These catch specifications are based on the control rules established in the CPS FMP and biomass estimates of 71,099 mt (2019-2020) and 56,058 mt (2020-2021). The biomass estimates are the result of a full stock assessment the NMFS SWFSC completed in June 2019 (see
Under this action, in the unlikely event that catch reaches the ACT in either fishing season, directed fishing would close, reserving the difference between the HG and ACT (1,000 mt) as a set-aside for incidental landings in other fisheries and other sources of mortality.
The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator will publish a notice in the
On August 23, 2019, NMFS published a proposed rule in the
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
Pursuant to the procedures established to implement Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this final rule is not significant.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(i) The following harvest specifications apply for Pacific mackerel:
(1) For the Pacific mackerel fishing season July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020, the harvest guideline is 11,109 mt and the ACT is 10,109 mt; and
(2) For the Pacific mackerel fishing season July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021, the harvest guideline is 7,950 mt and the ACT of 6,950 mt.
(j) When an ACT in paragraph (i) of this section has been reached or exceeded, then for the remainder of the Pacific mackerel fishing season, Pacific mackerel may not be targeted and landings of Pacific mackerel may not exceed: 45 percent of landings when Pacific mackerel are landed in CPS fisheries (in other words, no more than 45 percent by weight of the CPS landed per trip may be Pacific mackerel), or up to 3 mt of Pacific mackerel when landed in non-CPS fisheries. The Regional Administer shall announce in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the Bering Sea subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2019 Pacific
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), November 27, 2019, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2019.
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2019 Pacific ocean perch TAC in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI is 14,675 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2019 and 2020 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI and groundfish reserve release (84 FR 9000, March 13, 2019 and 84 FR 57653, October 28, 2019).
The Regional Administrator has determined that the 2019 TAC for Pacific Ocean perch in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 14,625 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 50 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. Consequently, in accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. While this closure remains in effect the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of Pacific ocean perch in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notification providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as November 25, 2019.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposal invites comments on adding the State of Missouri as a primary peanut-producing State under the Peanut Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Order). The Order is administered by the National Peanut Board (Board) with oversight by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This proposal would also add a producer member and alternate member to the Board to represent the State of Missouri. The Board recommended this action to ensure that the Board's representation reflects changes in the geographical distribution of the production of peanuts.
Comments must be received by January 2, 2020.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. Comments must be submitted on the internet at:
Jeanette Palmer, Marketing Specialist, Promotion and Economics Division, Specialty Crop Program, AMS, USDA, Stop 0244, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 1406-S, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (202) 720-9915; facsimile: (202) 205-2800; or electronic mail:
This proposal affecting the Order (7 CFR part 1216) is authorized under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act) (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules and promoting flexibility. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this proposed rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this proposed regulation would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not have significant Tribal implications.
This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. Section 524 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7423) provides that it shall not affect or preempt any other Federal or State law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 519 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7418), a person subject to an order may file a written petition with USDA stating that an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, is not established in accordance with the law, and request a modification of an order or an exemption from an order. Any petition filed challenging an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, shall be filed within two years after the effective date of an order, provision, or obligation subject to challenge in the petition. The petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, USDA will issue a ruling on the petition. The 1996 Act provides that the district court of the United States for any district in which the petitioner resides or conducts business shall have the jurisdiction to review a final ruling on the petition, if the petitioner files a complaint for that purpose not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of USDA's final ruling.
This proposed rule invites comments on adding the State of Missouri as a primary peanut-producing State under the Order. The Order is administered by the Board with oversight by USDA. This proposal would also add a producer member and alternate member to the Board to represent the State of Missouri. Under the Order, primary peanut-producing states must maintain a 3-year average production of at least 10,000 tons of peanuts to maintain this classification. Missouri's peanut production meets this requirement. Primary peanut-producing states also have a seat on the Board. The members
The Order became effective on July 30, 1999. Under the Order, the Board administers a nationally-coordinated program of promotion, research and information designed to strengthen the position of peanuts in the market place and to develop, maintain and expand the demand for peanuts in the United States. Under the program, assessments are levied on all farmers stock peanuts sold at a rate of $3.55 per ton for Segregation 1 peanuts and $1.25 per ton for Segregation 2 peanuts and 3 peanuts, as those terms are defined in §§ 996.13(b)-(d) of title 7. The assessments are remitted to the Board by handlers and, for peanuts under loan, by the Commodity Credit Corporation.
The Order distinguishes between the terms “minor peanut-producing states” and “primary peanut-producing states” for purposes of Board representation and voting at meetings. Section 1216.21 currently defines primary peanut-producing states as Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. These States must maintain a 3-year average production of at least 10,000 tons of peanuts. All other peanut-producing States are defined as minor peanut-producing States in § 1217.15.
Pursuant to § 1216.40(b), at least once in each five-year period, the Board must review the geographical distribution of peanuts in the United States and make a recommendation to the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) to continue the program without change or recommend that changes should be made in the number of representatives on the Board to reflect changes in the geographical distribution of the production of peanuts.
As required by the Order, the Board met and reviewed the geographical distribution of peanuts. According to data from the USDA's Federal State Inspection Service, for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018, 9,552, 13,059 and 12,597 tons of peanuts were inspected in Missouri, respectively. Based on this data, the 3-year average annual peanut production for Missouri totals 11,736 tons per year which exceeds the requirement in the Order of maintaining a 3-year average of 10,000 tons per year to be considered a primary peanut-producing State.
Based on Federal State Inspection Service data, the Board voted unanimously on August 28, 2019, to add Missouri as a primary peanut-producing State under the Order. Therefore, one producer member and one alternate member will be added to the Board to represent the State of Missouri.
These changes would help ensure that the Board's representation reflect changes in the geographical distribution of the production of peanuts. Accordingly, this proposed rule would amend §§ 1216.15 and 1216.21 to add the State of Missouri as a primary peanut-producing State. This proposal would also revise § 1216.40(a) to specify that the Board would be composed of no more than 13 peanut producer members and their alternates rather than 12. Further, § 1216.40(a)(1) would be revised to reflect the new number of primary peanut-producing states, by changing 11 to 12.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS is required to examine the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $1 million and small agricultural service firms (handlers) as those having annual receipts of no more than $30 million.
According to the Board, there were approximately 8,126 producers and 34 handlers of peanuts who were subject to the program in 2018.
Most producers would be classified as small agricultural production businesses under the criteria established by the SBA (no more than $1 million in annual sales). USDA's NASS reports that the crop values of the peanuts produced in the top 11 peanut-producing states in the years 2016 through 2018 were $1.09 billion, $1.63 billion and $1.16 billion, respectively. The 3-year crop average was $1.29 billion. With a 2018 crop value of $1.16 billion and a total of 8,126 producers, average peanut sales per producer were approximately $142,000. With a 2015-2018 average crop value of $1.29 billion, average sales per producer were approximately $159,000. Both figures are well below the $1 million threshold for a small producer, providing strong evidence that most peanut producers are small businesses.
With 34 handlers, the average annual peanut crop value per handler from 2016 to 2018 ranged from $32 million to $48 million, with a 3-year average of $38 million. With average sales figures moderately higher than the small business threshold size of $30 million, it appears that a number of handlers are small businesses and there are also a number that are large businesses—no definitive statement can be made.
The pounds of U.S. peanut production from the 11 primary peanut-producing states for 2016 through 2018 are 5.58 billion, 7.12 billion and 5.46 billion, respectively. The 3-year average was 6.05 billion pounds. Computations based on NASS data show that Georgia was the largest producer, with 50.8 percent of the 3-year average quantity, followed by Alabama (10.3 percent), Texas (9.6 percent), Florida (9.3 percent), North Carolina (6.7 percent), South Carolina (6.0 percent), Mississippi (2.3 percent), Arkansas (2.1 percent), Virginia (1.6 percent), with Oklahoma and New Mexico both under one percent.
This proposal would amend §§ 1216.15, 1216.21 and 1216.40 to add the State of Missouri as a primary peanut-producing State and to add a member and alternate to the Board to represent Missouri. The Order is administered by the Board with oversight by USDA. Under the Order, primary peanut-producing States must maintain a 3-year average production of at least 10,000 tons of peanuts. Missouri's peanut production meets this requirement. This action would ensure that the Board's representation reflects changes in the geographical distribution of the production of peanuts covered under the Order. This action is authorized under § 1216.40(b) and Section 515(b)(3) of the 1996 Act.
Regarding the economic impact of this proposed rule on affected entities, this action would impose no costs on producers or handlers. The changes would define the State of Missouri as a primary peanut-producing State based on recent production data and add a seat on the Board for the State of Missouri.
With regard to alternatives, the Board reviewed the peanut distribution for all the minor peanut-producing States and determined that Missouri was the only State so designated that met the Order's requirement for a 3-year average peanut production of at least 10,000 tons in order to qualify to become a primary peanut-producing State.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the background form (AD-755), which represents the information collection and recordkeeping requirements that may be imposed by this proposed rule, was previously approved under OMB control number 0581-0093.
Adding a producer member and alternate member representing the State of Missouri to the Board would require four additional producers to submit background forms (AD-755) to USDA, once every three years, in order to be considered for appointment to the Board. The Secretary requires two names to be submitted for each open seat on the Board. The public reporting burden is estimated to increase the total burden hours by less than one hour. This additional burden would be included in the existing information collection approved for use under OMB control number 0581-0093. In addition, serving on the Board is optional, and the burden of submitting the background form would be offset by the benefits of additional representation on the Board.
As with all Federal promotion programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Regarding outreach efforts, the Board discussed Missouri's peanut production level at its December 4-5, 2018 meeting. All the Board's meetings are open to the public and interested persons are invited to participate and express their views. The Board notified the primary peanut-producing States (Georgia, Alabama, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Arkansas, Virginia, Oklahoma and New Mexico) of Missouri's production numbers by disseminating information through the Board's weekly newsletter, which is titled
We have performed this initial RFA regarding the impact of this proposed action on small entities and we invite comments concerning potential effects of this action on small businesses.
While this proposed rule as set forth below has not yet received the approval of USDA, it has been determined that it is consistent with and would effectuate the purposes of the 1996 Act.
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. All written comments received in response to this proposed rule will be considered prior to finalizing this action.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Consumer information, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Peanut promotion.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1216 is proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 7411-7425; 7 U.S.C. 7401.
(a)
(1)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening of comment period.
The FAA is revising an earlier proposal for all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. This action revises the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) by reducing the compliance time for certain airplane configurations. The FAA is proposing this airworthiness directive (AD) to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions would impose an additional burden over those in the NPRM, the FAA is reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these changes.
The comment period for the NPRM published in the
The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by January 16, 2020.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Peter Jarzomb, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5234; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
The FAA will post all comments, without change, to
The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Since the FAA issued the NPRM, the agency has determined that, for certain airplane configurations, the compliance time must be reduced because these airplanes are subject to higher fatigue loads, which could result in cracking at the frame web and inner chord prior to the compliance times specified in the NPRM.
The FAA gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing, United Airlines (UAL), and Patrick Imperatrice stated their support for the NPRM.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not affect the actions specified in the proposed AD.
The FAA agrees with the commenter. The FAA has redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) as paragraph (c)(1) of this proposed AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this proposed AD to state that installation of STC ST01518SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
An anonymous commenter requested that the FAA allow the use of later-approved service information. The commenter stated that doing so would ensure that operators are promptly in compliance with the proposed AD and that all maintenance is certified to the latest-approved version of the maintenance data. The commenter stated that this allowance would remove the wait-time for the proposed AD to be revised to require later revisions of service information, and it would reduce the time it takes to implement the service information and the maintenance costs associated with requesting an AMOC. The commenter noted that the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) already incorporates the “or later revision” statement in its ADs, and this could demonstrate further harmonization of regulatory control.
The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The FAA may not refer to any document that does not yet exist in an AD. In general terms, the FAA is required by Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations for approval of materials incorporated by reference, as specified in 1 CFR 51.1(f), to either publish the service document contents as part of the actual AD language; or submit the service document to the OFR for approval as referenced material, in which case the FAA may only refer to such material in the text of an AD. ADs may refer to the service document only if the OFR approved it for incorporation by reference. See 1 CFR 51.
To allow operators to use later revisions of the referenced document (issued after publication of the AD), either the FAA must revise the AD to reference specific later revisions, or operators or the manufacturer must request approval to use later revisions as an AMOC with the AD. The FAA has not changed this proposed AD regarding this issue.
FedEx requested that the proposed AD be revised to include FAA Form 8110-3 as an approved document for alternative inspections provision in note (a) 2. of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019. FedEx stated that note (a) 2. to tables 1 through 6 of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019, states that it is not a requirement
The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. Note (a) 2. of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019, addresses repairs that are designed as corrective actions to address the unsafe condition, which include a follow-on inspection program. The FAA allows FAA Form 8100-9 for approved repairs that meet the specified criteria, because it is used by the Boeing ODA. The ODA staff are familiar with the unsafe condition addressed by this proposed AD and are able to develop a repair and repetitive inspection program that adequately addresses the unsafe condition. FAA Form 8110-3 is for use by a consultant designated engineering representative (DER), who may not have the same data or knowledge of the unsafe condition as the ODA. For this reason, the FAA does not allow approvals granted via an FAA Form 8110-3 under the provisions of note (a) 2. of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019. However, operators may request approval of an AMOC under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this proposed AD. The FAA has not changed this proposed AD regarding this issue.
FedEx requested that the notes in paragraph “5.A., General Information,” of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019, only be applied to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0113, dated February 22, 2019. FedEx stated that these notes are just for general information and should not be subject to the proposed AD. FedEx commented that other operators and maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) facilities have acceptable maintenance practices that are approved under 14 CFR 121 and 14 CFR 145. FedEx stated if a note is to be regulated by the proposed AD, then the note should be listed under paragraph “5.B., Work Instructions” of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019.
The FAA agrees to clarify. The notes contained in paragraph “5.A., General Information,” of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019, provide provisions to define or explain different aspects of the service information, including inspection types, dimensions and tolerances, and other information. In general, these notes are relieving. If certain notes were not included in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019, operators would need to request AMOC approvals for items like fastener substitutions and tolerances for different dimensions or torque values. Therefore, operators should not need AMOCs for items covered by the notes. The FAA has not changed this proposed AD regarding this issue.
FedEx requested that either open and close access requirements be removed from Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019, or Boeing should return to issuing only “Alert Service Bulletins” with marked “RC” (required for compliance) steps. FedEx stated that tables 1 through 8 of paragraph “5.B.1., Requirements” of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019, include actions for open and close access. FedEx commented that having these actions within the Requirements Bulletin makes them mandatory and regulated under the proposed AD. FedEx stated that the reason for moving to Requirements Bulletins was to eliminate the need for an AMOC for items like access and general maintenance practices.
The FAA agrees to clarify. The open and close access steps are not identified in the “Action” column in the tables in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019, and therefore are not required by this AD. The open and close access steps in the “Refer to” column in the tables in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019, are only there to specify one method for open and close access if needed. Operators may use accepted methods for open and close access in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC. The FAA has not changed this proposed AD regarding this issue.
FedEx requested that the NPRM be revised for certain airplane configurations. FedEx stated that its Model 757-200 airplanes were converted to a configuration similar to Boeing Model 757-200SF airplanes using VT Mobile Aerospace Engineering (VTMAE) STC ST03562AT, and are no longer configured as a passenger airplane. FedEx commented that according to Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019, its Model 757-200 fleet falls under groups 2, 7, and 10. FedEx also commented that per VTMAE STC ST03562AT, the area addressed by the proposed AD are not altered, but are subject to Model 757-200SF loads. Therefore, FedEx requested to utilize the inspections and methods for groups 2, 7, and 10 airplanes, but utilize the compliance times for groups 3 and 5 airplanes; this would reduce the repetitive interval from 6,000 flight cycles to 4,000 flight cycles. In addition, FedEx requested that this change be incorporated into the proposed AD so that it will not have to request an AMOC.
The FAA agrees with the commenter that VTMAE STC ST03562AT converts Model 757-200 passenger airplanes to a cargo configuration that is similar to Model 757-200SF airplanes. Since airplanes that have been modified from a passenger configuration to a freighter configuration by STC ST03562AT are subjected to increased freighter fatigue loads, these airplanes need to be inspected at the reduced compliance times. Therefore, the FAA has added paragraph (g)(2) to this proposed AD, which requires airplanes that have been converted from a passenger to freighter configuration using VTMAE STC ST03562AT, to do all applicable actions for groups 2, 7, and 10 airplanes as identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019, at the times specified for groups 3 and 5 airplanes, as applicable, in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019.
The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019. This service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection of the fuselage frames with a cargo liner support channel for any existing repair, repetitive surface HFEC inspections of the fuselage frames with a cargo liner support channel for any cracking, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include a general visual inspection of the fuselage frames adjacent to a frame with a
The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
This SNPRM would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.” For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
This proposed AD requires that airplanes that have been converted from a passenger to freighter configuration using VTMAE STC ST03562AT, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with groups 2, 7 and 10 airplanes, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019, at the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph for groups 3 and 5 airplanes, of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019. These airplanes are subject to higher fatigue loads and require a reduced compliance time from 6,000 flight cycles to 4,000 flight cycles.
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 544 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition inspections that would be required. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition inspections:
The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repair specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments by January 16, 2020.
None.
(1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report that during a maintenance check an operator discovered cracking of the aft cargo compartment frames in the station 1460 frame web and inner chord between certain stringers. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking at the frame web and inner chord; such cracks could propagate until they cause a severed frame, which could result in additional undetected cracking in adjacent fuselage frames, and could ultimately result in reduced structural integrity of the aft cargo frames and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Except as specified by paragraphs (g)(2) and (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019.
Guidance for accomplishing the actions required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0113, dated February 22, 2019, which is referred to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019.
(2) For airplanes that have been converted from a passenger to freighter configuration using VT Mobile Aerospace Engineering (VTMAE) STC ST03562AT: Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD, at the times specified for groups 3 and 5 airplanes, as applicable, in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019, do all applicable actions for groups 2, 7, and 10 airplanes as identified in, and in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019.
(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019, uses the phrase “the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD,” except where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019, uses the phrase “the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB” in a note or flag note.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0113 RB, dated February 22, 2019, specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions or for alternative inspections: This AD requires doing the repair, or doing the alternative inspections and applicable on-condition actions before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Peter Jarzomb, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5234; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that a fouling condition was found between the generator power cables and the support brackets of the auxiliary-aft fuel tank during production. This proposed AD would require a visual inspection of the generator power cables for damage, installation of protective conduits and edging grommets, and applicable corrective actions. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 16, 2020.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Thomas Niczky, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7347; fax 516-794-5531; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2019-22, dated May 27, 2019 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
This proposed AD was prompted by a report that a fouling condition was found between the generator power cables and the support brackets of the auxiliary-aft fuel tank during production. The FAA is proposing this AD to address damage to the insulation sleeve of the generator power cables that can potentially cause a short circuit, arcing, and a malfunction of one or both main generators. See the MCAI for additional background information.
Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 601R-24-131, dated June 28, 2012. This service information describes procedures for visual inspection of the generator power cables for damage, installation of protective insulation and edging grommets, and applicable corrective actions. Corrective actions include repair. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to a bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 9 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments by January 16, 2020.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-131, dated June 28, 2012.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical power.
This AD was prompted by a report that a fouling condition was found between the generator power cables and the support brackets of the auxiliary-aft fuel tank during production. The FAA is issuing this AD to address damage to the insulation sleeve of the generator power cables that can potentially cause a short circuit, arcing, and a malfunction of one or both main generators.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, visually inspect the generator power cables and wire strands for damage, install protective conduits and edging grommets, and do all applicable corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-131, dated June 28, 2012. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2019-22, dated May 27, 2019, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Thomas Niczky, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7347; fax 516-794-5531; email
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.
This document cancels a public hearing on proposed regulations under sections 1291, 1297, and 1298 of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) regarding the determination of ownership in a passive foreign investment company within the meaning of section 1297(a) (“PFIC”) and
The public hearing, originally scheduled for December 9, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. is cancelled.
The cancelled hearing was originally scheduled to be held at the Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Regina Johnson, Publications and Regulations Specialist at (202) 317-6901 (not a toll-free number).
A notice of public hearing that appeared in the
The public comment period for these regulations expired on September 9, 2019. The notice of hearing instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit an outline of the topics to be discussed. The outline of topics to be discussed was due by November 22, 2019. As of November 22, 2019, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for December 9, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. is cancelled.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; consistency update.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to update a portion of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Air Regulations. Requirements applying to OCS sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries must be updated periodically to remain consistent with the requirements of the corresponding onshore area (COA), as mandated by the Clean Air Act (CAA). The portion of the OCS air regulations that is being updated pertains to the requirements for OCS sources subject to requirements of the State of Alaska. The State of Alaska's requirements discussed in this document, and listed in the appendix to the Federal OCS air regulations, are proposed to be incorporated into the compilation of state provisions that is incorporated by reference.
Written comments must be received on or before January 2, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2019-0433 at
Natasha Greaves, (206) 553-7079, or by email at
On September 4, 1992, EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 55,
Pursuant to 40 CFR 55.12, consistency reviews will occur at least annually. Additionally, consistency reviews will occur upon receipt of a Notice of Intent (NOI) under 40 CFR 55.4 and when a State or local agency submits a rule to EPA to be considered for incorporation by reference in 40 CFR part 55. This proposed action is being taken in response to the submittal of a NOI on October 1, 2019, by Hilcorp Alaska, LLC. Public comments received within 30 days of publication of this document will be considered by EPA before publishing a final rule.
Section 328(a) of the CAA requires that EPA establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, EPA must incorporate applicable onshore rules into 40 CFR part 55 as they exist onshore. This limits EPA's flexibility in deciding which requirements will be incorporated into 40 CFR part 55 and prevents EPA from making substantive changes to the requirements it incorporates. As a result, EPA may be incorporating rules into 40 CFR part 55 that do not conform to all of EPA's state implementation plan (SIP) guidance or certain requirements of the CAA. Consistency updates may result in the inclusion of state or local rules or regulations into 40 CFR part 55, even though the same rules may ultimately be disapproved for inclusion as part of the SIP. Inclusion in the OCS rule does not imply that a rule meets the requirements of the CAA for SIP approval, nor does
EPA reviewed Alaska's rules for incorporation by reference in 40 CFR part 55 to ensure that they are rationally related to the attainment or maintenance of Federal or state ambient air quality standards and compliance with part C of title I of the CAA, that they are not designed expressly to prevent exploration and development of the OCS, and that they are potentially applicable to OCS sources.
EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposed action, and these comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in this rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA Regional Office listed in the
EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the rules potentially applicable to sources for which the State of Alaska will be the COA. The rules that EPA proposes to incorporate are applicable provisions of Title 18 of the Alaska Administrative Code, specifically, the provisions of Air Quality Control Chapter 50 identified below. The intended effect of proposing approval of various Alaska air pollution control requirements for inclusion in the updated compilation of “State of Alaska Requirement Applicable to OCS Sources” dated September 15, 2018, is to regulate emissions from OCS sources in accordance with the requirements for onshore sources.
In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference provisions of Chapter 50 of the Alaska Administrative Code set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore air pollution control requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, the EPA must incorporate applicable onshore rules into 40 CFR part 55 as they exist onshore.
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule incorporating by reference sections of Title 18 of the Alaska Administrative Code, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because this action is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C 3501
EPA is proposing to incorporate the rules potentially applicable to sources for which the State of Alaska will be the COA. The rules that EPA proposes to incorporate are the identified provisions of Title 18 of the Alaska Administrative Code, specifically, Air Quality Control Chapter 50.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Outer continental shelf, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 55 of Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended follows:
Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) State of Alaska Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources, September 15, 2018.
(a) * * *
(1) The following State of Alaska requirements are applicable to OCS Sources, September 15, 2018, Alaska Administrative Code—Department of Environmental Conservation. The following sections of Title 18, Chapter 50:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
On April 17, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) promulgated national minimum criteria for existing and new coal combustion residuals (CCR) landfills and existing and new CCR surface impoundments. On August 21, 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the case of
Comments must be received on or before January 31, 2020.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172. The EPA has previously established a docket for the April 17, 2015, CCR final rule under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640, and docket for the CCR Phase One Part One Rule under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0286. All documents in the docket are listed in the
•
•
•
A public hearing will be held either virtually or in in person in the Washington, DC metro area. The EPA will announce further details on the public hearing on EPA's CCR website (
Please note that if this hearing is held at a U.S. government facility, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering federal facilities. For purposes of the REAL ID Act, EPA will accept government-issued IDs, including driver's licenses, from the District of Columbia and all states and territories except from American Samoa. If your identification is issued by American Samoa, you must present an additional form of identification to enter the federal building where the public hearing will be held. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver's licenses, and military identification cards. For additional information for the status of your state regarding REAL ID, go to:
For information concerning this proposed rule, contact Kirsten Hillyer, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, MC: 5304P, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 347-0369; email address:
The EPA is publishing this proposed rule to revise portions of the federal CCR regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 257 so that they accurately reflect the regulations as they now stand in light of the decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of
In addition, this proposed rule addresses the October 31, 2020 deadline in §§ 257.101(a) and (b)(1)(i), by which CCR surface impoundments must cease receipt of waste; these regulatory provisions were remanded back to EPA by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for further reconsideration in light of the
In this action, EPA is proposing three categories of amendments to the part 257 regulations. First, EPA is proposing to change the classification of compacted-soil lined or “clay-lined” surface impoundments from “lined” to
Several developments have changed the estimated costs of the CCR program since the publication of the final rule in 2015. First, reporting data show that the affected universe of surface impoundments is composed of more unlined units, and that more surface impoundments regardless of liner type are leaking than was modeled in the 2015 RIA. The affected universe is therefore incurring higher closure costs sooner, which increases the overall cost of the program. Second, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated provisions of the rule that allowed certain classes of impoundments to continue operating until they leaked. This decision will force these units to close next year, sooner than they were modeled to close in the 2015 RIA. This also increases the overall cost of the CCR program. The absolute costs of the CCR program have increased since they were estimated in 2015. For the sake of accuracy and transparency this cost increase is estimated and shown in the RIA. This increase in costs is attributable solely to the existing provisions of the CCR rule. The provisions of the proposed rule decrease costs by extending certain existing compliance deadlines. The proposed rule is therefore considered a cost savings rule. This action is expected to result in net cost savings amounting to an annualized $39.5 million per year when discounting at 7%. Further information on the economic effects of this action can be found in Unit VI of this preamble.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172, at
The EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing upon publication of this document in the
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. Additionally, requests to speak will be taken the day of the hearing at the hearing registration desk or through the virtual hearing platform. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register, although preferences on speaking times may not be able to be fulfilled.
Each commenter will have 5 minutes to provide oral testimony. The EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral testimony electronically (via email) or in hard copy form. If EPA is anticipating a high attendance, the time allotment per testimony may be shortened to no
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing. Verbatim transcripts of the hearings and written statements will be included in the docket for the rulemaking.
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing is posted online on EPA's CCR website (
If you require the service of a translator please pre-register for the hearing and describe your needs by December 23, 2019. If you require special accommodations such as audio description or closed captioning (if the hearing is held virtually), please pre-register for the hearing and describe your needs by December 30, 2019. We may not be able to arrange accommodations without advanced notice. Commenters should notify the person listed in the
This proposed rule applies to all CCR generated by electric utilities and independent power producers that fall within the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 221112 and may affect the following entities: Electric utility facilities and independent power producers that fall under the NAICS code 221112. This discussion is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This discussion lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not described here could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in § 257.50 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
The EPA is proposing to revise certain provisions of the CCR regulations at 40 CFR part 257 in response to the decisions issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on August 21, 2018, in
This proposed rule addresses the vacatur of the regulatory provisions that permitted unlined impoundments to continue receiving waste unless they leak, 40 CFR 275.101(a), and that classified “clay-lined” impoundments as lined, thereby allowing such units to operate 40 CFR 257.71(a)(1)(i). The
This proposed rule also addresses the date by which unlined CCR surface impoundments and CCR units that failed the aquifer location standard must cease receiving waste, and initiate closure which the D.C. Circuit Court remanded to EPA on March 13, 2019 in the
EPA intends that the provisions of this rule would be severable. In the event that any individual provision or part of this rule is invalidated, EPA intends that this would not render the entire rule invalid, and that any individual provisions that can continue to operate will be left in place.
These regulations are established under the authority of sections 1008(a), 2002(a), 4004, and 4005(a) and (d) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), and the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act of 2016, 42 U.S.C. 6907(a), 6912(a), 6944, and 6945(a) and (d).
This action is expected to result in net cost savings amounting to an annualized $39.5 million per year when discounting at 7%. Further information on the economic effects of this action can be found in Unit VI of this preamble.
On April 17, 2015, EPA finalized national minimum criteria for the disposal of CCR as solid waste under Subtitle D of RCRA titled, “Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities,” (80 FR 21302) (2015 rule). The 2015 rule regulated existing and new CCR landfills and existing and new CCR surface impoundments and all lateral expansions of CCR units. It is codified in subpart D of part 257 of Title 40 of the CFR. The criteria consist of location restrictions, design and operating criteria, groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements, closure and post-closure care requirements, and recordkeeping, notification and internet posting requirements. The rule also required any existing unlined CCR surface impoundment that is contaminating groundwater above a regulated constituent's groundwater protection standard to stop receiving wastes and either close or retrofit, except in certain circumstances. This closure requirement applied only to unlined CCR surface impoundments; units with either a composite liner or “clay-lined” that met the requirements of section 257.71(a) were allowed to operate indefinitely.
The rule was challenged by several parties, including a coalition of regulated entities and a coalition of environmental organizations (“Environmental Petitioners”). See
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its decision on August 21, 2018 (
Prior to the August 21, 2018 decision in
The July 2018 final rule was challenged by Waterkeeper Alliance, who also requested an expedited review of the October 31, 2020 deadline. See
EPA is proposing to require that facilities cease placement of all wastes (both CCR and non-CCR) as soon as technically feasible. To determine what is technically feasible, EPA reviewed currently available construction and engineering data for each step that owners and operators need to take to cease the receipt of waste and initiate closure of the unit. Based on this review, EPA is proposing to establish a new deadline of August 31, 2020 for unlined surface impoundments to cease receiving waste.
However, the information that EPA reviewed also indicated that some of these facilities will not be able to complete all of the construction and/or engineering needed to cease receiving waste into their unlined impoundment(s) by this deadline. In addition, the
This action proposes to amend the regulatory language to accurately reflect the aspects of the
The
As noted previously, the USWAG court held that EPA acted “arbitrarily and capriciously and contrary to RCRA” in failing to require the closure of all unlined surface impoundments and ordered that “ the Final Rule be vacated and remanded with respect to the provisions that permit unlined impoundments to continue receiving coal ash unless they leak.” See 901 F.3d at 449. The EPA interprets this as only a partial vacatur of section 257.101(a). The EPA interprets the court as having
The October 31, 2020 timeframe was established by the rule published on July 30, 2018 at 83 FR 36435, rather than by the original 2015 final rule. The July 2018 amendment had not yet been challenged when the
The
Further, any assessment to support continued operation likely would need to address the more recent information developed since 2015. For example, more recent data suggest that a greater number of units are leaking than EPA originally estimated during the rulemaking. The EPA has also learned that some units were constructed such that the base of the unit is located within the underlying aquifer, conditions that were not evaluated in the 2014 risk assessment. Unfortunately, this new information is not presented in a form that can be readily incorporated into a nationwide risk assessment. Additionally, given the expedited timeframe needed to complete the reconsideration of the deadline for a unit to cease receiving waste and initiate closure, EPA was unable to develop a nationwide risk assessment of continued operation of these units.
However, many utilities currently could not immediately cease the placement of wastestreams into their surface impoundments without causing potentially significant disruptions to plant operations and thus the provision of electricity to their customers, as they lack additional capacity to manage these wastes elsewhere as laid out in their filings to the
To address these competing considerations in a manner consistent with the statute and the D.C. Circuit's decisions, EPA is proposing to require that facilities cease placement of all wastes (both CCR and non-CCR) as soon as technically feasible, and below describes what the agency considers this to mean. EPA considers that such a requirement would meet the RCRA § 4004(a) standard because it requires the facility to do what is possible in the shortest achievable time. The EPA cannot impose more protective measures than can be technically feasibly implemented, as the law cannot compel the impossible.
To determine what is technically feasible, EPA evaluated the steps that owners and operators need to take to cease receipt of waste and initiate closure. For each surface impoundment, the precise steps and the actual time needed to complete each step are unique. However, each unit must undertake the same fundamental steps in order to cease receipt of waste and initiate closure. The first and most important step to cease receipt of waste in an unlined CCR surface impoundment is that the CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams need to be diverted to another unit (
Alternate capacity must be developed for the wastestreams that are being disposed of in the impoundment. The alternate capacity could range from the construction of a new CCR surface impoundment, to a new non-CCR wastewater basin, to the development of a wastewater treatment unit or to the conversion to dry-handling of CCR. These alternate capacities require various times for construction and incorporation into plant operations. In addition, the engineering and design for each of these capacities requires a different timeframe and is highly dependent on the current plant design, complexity of the wastestreams going into the new alternate capacity, and the volume of wastestreams needing to be rerouted.
Industry stakeholders submitted information to EPA on the time needed to develop various types of alternate capacity. The EPA also examined the declarations submitted in the
Each of these approaches for alternate capacity are discussed further in the subsequent sections of this preamble. The discussion for each approach examines the average time required to complete the approach and have the capacity operational. This average amount of time captures some of the variability due to site-specific needs and provides for a more accurate national benchmark of how long it will take to develop that specific alternate capacity approach.
Based on information submitted by stakeholders, many facilities are converting to the dry handling of CCR. The conversion to dry handling lowers the amount of water used at the plant and reduces the need for CCR surface impoundments. The conversion process for the various sluiced CCR wastestreams can be complex and lengthy. The conversion to dry handling for some CCR wastestreams has taken 36 months at some facilities.
During the planning, design and engineering phase the facility must conduct a complete water mass balance of the plant and figure out how the water mass balance will change with the implementation of the new dry handling machinery. The water mass balance determines the number and volume of flows going into the plant and produced by the plant. It also analyzes the chemical composition, the flow path, the volumetric flow rate, and temperature of each wastestream. Conversion to dry handling requires an overhaul to the water mass balance of the plant and reconfiguration of water streams in the operation of the plant. To assist in the reconfiguration of the water streams of the plant a new process flow diagram (PFD) and piping and instrument drawing (P&ID) for the plant will need to be developed. A PFD depicts the general flow of the plant processes and the equipment. The P&ID shows more detail than the PFD by including minor flows, control loops, piping details, and instrumentation. The design of the new P&ID and PFD is a critical planning step to properly transition plant operations to dry handling. These diagrams assist engineers in selecting the correct grade, material, and size of piping for the volume and compositions of wastestreams being rerouted during the conversion process.
Once the engineering and design phase is complete, the design can go out for procurement and contractor bidding. This second phase of the conversion process is approximately 5 months. During this phase the project is put out for contractor bid and is awarded. Once a contractor is selected the necessary equipment is ordered, fabricated, and delivered to the site. In the timeline provided by an engineering firm the fabrication and delivery of the equipment phase has approximately 9 months of overlap with the construction phase of the conversion process. The delivery of the equipment is coordinated with the construction schedule. The main process of the construction phase is changing how the bottom ash is removed from the bottom of the boiler. Other steps during the construction phase can also involve the building of a new power house, new process building, new power supplies and lines, new pneumatic lines and piping, new dry ash storage silos, new filter separators, and new piping.
Facilities currently remove bottom ash from the boiler by letting the bottom ash fall to the bottom of the furnace and then quenching it in a water-filled hopper. Most plants then sluice (using water to transport) the ash from the hopper to a CCR surface impoundment. There are various systems a facility can install to convert to dry handling of bottom ash. The most common systems are remote drag chain systems and dense slurry systems. The remote mechanical drag system requires the installation of a drag chain conveyor that pulls the bottom ash out of the water filled hopper to dewater the ash and transport it to a storage silo or truck. The dense slurry system uses a dry vacuum to transport the ash to a silo where it is then mixed with a small amount of water to be pumped to an onsite landfill. There are other conveyor systems a facility may install in lieu of the two previously mentioned such as a mechanical drag system, dry mechanical conveyor, vibratory belt system, or submerged grind conveyor where the system involves installing a conveyor system directly underneath the boiler. These systems replace the pumping and piping system currently in place to transport the sluiced CCR to the existing CCR surface impoundment. The removal of the sluicing process flows requires modifying the boilers. To capture and transport dry CCR, a conveyer system needs to be installed under the boiler, which cannot be installed while the boiler is online. Duke Energy stated that the installation of a submerged conveyer system required a 12-week outage of the boiler.
The facility is required to schedule and agree upon boiler shutdown periods with their Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) to ensure grid reliability. Most plants have regular boiler shutdowns on an annual basis with a more substantial one every few years. Since regular boiler shutdowns are already scheduled, the facility should plan the construction around the already scheduled outage; however, the outage may need to be extended depending on the work needing to be completed for the conversion. The RTOs require various lead times of consultation or notice prior to any retirements, outages, or extended
Once the sluicing process flows are removed and the construction is completed, the plant is fully transitioned to dry handling. At this point in time the facility no longer needs the CCR surface impoundment for CCR wastestreams and can cease receipt of CCR. Information submitted to EPA suggests that the process to complete the conversion to dry handling for a facility requires the most amount of time (36 to 48 months) out of all the alternate capacity methods; however, a majority of coal-fired plants have completed the conversion to dry handling. Based on information collected in conjunction with the ELG rule, approximately 20% of coal-fired plants are still producing bottom ash being sluiced to a CCR surface impoundment. The remaining 80% have either converted to a complete dry handling system or are using a system recycling their wet sluicing bottom ash streams.
Several stakeholders are currently using CCR surface impoundments for disposal of only non-CCR wastestreams, discussed more in the section below, after the conversion to dry handling. For some facilities prior to the
Some examples of non-CCR wastestreams are coal pile run-off, leachate collection, storm water collection, process recycle water, boiler blow down, and chemical metal cleaning waste. To meet the need for handling non-CCR wastestreams a facility may decide to construct a basin for the non-CCR wastestreams, assuming they have the space to construct the new unit. Since, the CCR design criteria and groundwater monitoring network regulations do not apply to new non-CCR wastestream basins, such units may be constructed faster.
The EPA has received data from stakeholders stating the process of building and transitioning from a unit that comingled CCR and non-CCR wastestreams to a non-CCR wastestream only basin takes 18 to 41 months to complete.
The engineering and design phase is the first step in construction of the basin. The engineering and design phase takes approximately four months to complete. The engineering phase includes site survey, engineering and design of the basin, design of the new piping to be installed, and designing a new process flow diagram of how the new basin will be connected to plant operations. The basin design is critical to ensure there is proper residence time and the construction materials selected are compatible with the water chemistry of the non-CCR wastestreams. The residence time is the necessary time for any reactions or settling to be completed before the wastewater is recycled back to the facility or discharged. The design of the new piping and the process flow diagram is a critical planning step to properly incorporate the new basin into plant operations. The diagram assists engineers in selecting the correct grade, material, and size of piping for the volume and compositions of wastestreams being routed into and out of the new non-CCR basin.
The next phase of contracting, procurement, and construction occurs after the completion of the engineering and design. This phase takes approximately 16 months to complete. The design from the first phase is put out for contract selection and the necessary equipment is ordered and delivered. During the procurement process the necessary materials, such as the correct type and amount of piping and the materials to construct and line the basin are selected, as well as any equipment or machinery needed to assist in installation and construction are ordered and delivered to the facility. The equipment is commonly delivered in accordance with the construction schedule. The procurement and construction periods typically have a large amount of overlap with each other due to equipment being ordered and delivered to the facility as it is needed during construction. The approximate time to complete construction for a non-CCR wastewater basin is 14 months. This timeframe includes the construction of the new basin, installation of the liner material selected, such as concrete, rerouting and installation of new piping to the new non-CCR wastewater basin, and installation of any mechanical and
The startup and testing of the new basin is the final phase. This step takes approximately one month to complete however it may vary depending on the site-specific conditions to achieve proper outfall water chemistry and settling time of the basin. The basin is engineered to have a specific residence time to obtain proper water chemistry and settling time. Both of these design factors are important to obtain the proper water outfall chemistry to meet the National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards. Prior to allowing the basin's outfall to be discharged, the water chemistry needs to be tested to ensure it meets the NPDES standards. If the outfall does not meet the standards, the operating conditions will have to be adjusted, such as flow rate into the basin to adjust residence time and settling time. Alternatively, the water from the basin may not be discharged and may be recycled back to the plant. The recycle stream would need to meet the site-specific standards for the given facility. Additionally, the water could also be treated downstream from the basin prior to discharge, for example a series of basins or in water treatment facility. These factors can lead to a longer startup phase for the basin. Once proper water chemistry and settling times are achieved, the new basin is fully operational, and the old CCR surface impoundment can cease receiving waste. Once proper water chemistry and settling times are achieved and treatment standards are met, the new basin is fully operational, and the old CCR surface impoundment can cease receiving waste.
Since some facilities have not or will not convert to dry handling, there are some facilities that still require capacity for their wet CCR wastestreams. These facilities most likely will not be able to solely rely on a non-CCR wastestreams basin because the liner usually does not meet the requirements of the CCR rule; therefore, non-CCR wastestream basins are unable to accept CCR. Under the current Part 257 regulations, a facility has two main options for managing wet CCR wastestreams, a wastewater treatment facility and a CCR surface impoundment.
The development of a wastewater treatment facility would provide one type of alternate capacity for facilities. A wastewater treatment facility is able to remove heavy metals and reduce the amount of Total Disolved Solids (TDS) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) from the wastestreams. Wastewater treatment facilities can potentially utilize a vast number of components and methods for treatment. One method of water treatment facility is a chemical precipitation system. Based on information obtained in connection with the development of the Effluent Limit Guidelines (ELG) rule, the development, construction, and implementation of this type of wastewater treatment unit would take on average 16 to 21 months. This range of time is highly dependent on the volumes of the wastewater streams that need to be treated. There are a variety of materials to choose from to construct the treatment tanks. One type of water treatment tank is concrete treatment tanks.
The water treatment facilities are completed in 5 phases: (1) Initial engineering and design (approximately 3 months), (2) contractor selection (approximately 3 to 5 months), (3) finalization of engineering and design (approximately 2 to 3 months), (4) equipment procurement, and construction (approximately 7 to 8 months), and (5) start up and transitioning (approximately one month).
The initial engineering and design phase mainly focus on the evaluation of the water mass balance of the plant. On average approximately three months are needed complete this first phase of the initial engineering and design. To evaluate the water mass balance of the plant, all the water streams coming into the plant, going out of the plant, and any specific steps that would change the water chemistry need to be evaluated for volumetric flow rate and chemical composition. At large facilities, complex water balances are common, which require more time than three months for the initial engineering evaluation and design. A complex water mass balance contains numerous water streams, with variable composition changes within a stream, and various volumes and flow rates. The more water streams there are, the more complex, and challenging it is to determine the overall water mass balance for the plant. One stakeholder indicated a simple water mass balance at a plant had nine wastestreams; whereas, a significantly more complex water mass balance at a plant had over 50 wastestreams.
After the first phase of the initial engineering and design, the owner or operator is then able to put the project out for contractor bidding, thus beginning the second phase of contractor selection. The bidding and selection of the contractor is typically three to five months. The range in time is driven by the complexity and volume of wastewater. Large volumes and complex flows mean that it will take longer to properly submit an initial design of the wastewater treatment facility. This in turn makes the bidding and selection process longer as well. The initial design of the water treatment facility includes the recommended treatment methods and the order in which they should occur, and the recommended materials for the treatment methods.
After selection of the contractor, the third phase is finalization of engineering
Once the finalization of engineering and design phase is complete, the necessary materials must be obtained and installed during the fourth phase, procurement and construction. This phase requires approximately seven to eight months to complete. Some necessary materials are treatment tanks, piping, polymer and instrumentation. The procurement period typically can take five months. However, if the wastestreams are large in volume or if the water chemistry is particularly complex, the equipment will need to be custom ordered and require longer fabrication times which could lead to a procurement time of 12 months or longer. For example, one stakeholder indicated for a complex water mass balance system of more than 50 wastestreams with streams that contain a high amount of variability, that the procurement period (procure, fabricate, and deliver to the site) took 13 months.
The final phase is start up and transitioning the wastestreams to the water treatment facility and conducting system testing to ensure it is running properly and effectively treating the water to meet the discharge levels or recycled water requirements. The discharge of the water treatment facility is required to meet NPDES discharge limits. Such limits may include for example maximum amount of Total Suspended Solids (TSS), oil and grease, and iron and copper for metal cleaning wastes.
Facilities may have the need to construct a new CCR surface impoundment rather than a water treatment facility. A CCR surface impoundment could be capable of handling a wider variety of CCR and non-CCR wastestreams both in chemical composition and in volume. A new CCR surface impoundment takes on average 27 months to construct. This average was obtained from available data submitted by stakeholders indicating how long it will take to construct a new surface impoundment in compliance with the CCR rule.
The construction timeframe includes four phases: (1) Engineering and design, (2) permitting, (3) obtaining contractors, equipment and construction, and (4) system testing. The first phase of engineering and design takes on average six months to complete. During the engineering phase the new surface impoundment is designed to be the proper size, the site survey conducted, the liner materials selected, and designing any necessary methods to transport the wastestreams to the new surface impoundment. The new surface impoundment must be designed to specific dimensions (length, width, and depth) to achieve the necessary residence time for the volume of wastestreams disposed of into the surface impoundment. The residence time is a critical design element of the surface impoundment because it allows the wastestreams to undergo the proper settling time and treatment time to obtain proper water chemistry at the outfall to meet appropriate discharge limits. The residence time assists in determining the necessary size of the surface impoundment.
The second phase, permitting, can take between 6 to 18 months to complete. This phase of construction is highly variable depending on the type of permit(s) needed and the state's permit application processing time. In some cases, the other phases such as obtaining contractors, equipment and construction can continue and have some overlap with the permitting phase. The EPA acknowledges that in some rare circumstances the permitting process may take significantly longer. For example, one stakeholder indicated that due to the necessary permits for constructing the surface impoundment, they are unable to proceed with the next phases until the permit applications are approved.
The third phase is obtaining contractors, purchasing materials and equipment, and completing construction. This phase on average takes 14 months to complete. This phase includes contractor selection, material procurement, construction of the surface impoundment, liner installation, and installation of piping, any other machinery, and/or electrical components to transport the wastestreams to the new surface impoundment. Depending on the size of the surface impoundment and the location of the facility it is possible the construction phase may take longer or shorter than 14 months. The average of 14 months was obtained by averaging the timeframes provided by the stakeholders who indicated the need to construct a new surface impoundment. The shortest timeframe to obtain contractors, equipment, and construct the impoundment was 10 months for a small surface impoundment of 7 acres.
The new CCR surface impoundment is required to be constructed with the new CCR surface impoundment liner requirements in § 257.72. This requires a composite liner containing an upper component of a 30-mil geomembrane liner (GM) and a lower component of two feet of compacted soil with a
The final phase of construction is the startup and transition phase. This phase can take up to a month to complete. Once the sampling of the new groundwater monitoring system and construction of the surface impoundment is complete, the CCR and non-CCR wastestreams can be diverted to the new CCR surface impoundment from the existing CCR surface impoundment.
Some stakeholders indicated plans on retrofitting a part or an entire existing unlined CCR surface impoundment at a facility.
One stakeholder indicated the necessary time to retrofit an impoundment is approximately 64.5 months including a six-month buffer.
From data on the CCR publicly accessible websites, a couple of facilities, Keystone Generating Station (PA), Weston Generating Station (WI), and Mt. Storm Power Station (WV), have completed retrofits of CCR surface impoundments.
The existing CCR surface impoundment is required to be retrofitted in accordance with § 257.102(k). First, the owner or operator must prepare a written retrofit plan in accordance with § 257.102(k)(2). After the retrofit plan is complete, the first step in retrofitting an existing surface impoundment is to drain the liquids from the impoundment and remove all the existing CCR from the unit. While the surface impoundment is undergoing retrofit, the owner or operator is required to remain in compliance with the other aspects of the CCR rule including corrective action.
Once the CCR is removed, the new surface impoundment can be constructed. The new surface impoundment is constructed as described previously and must be in compliance with the liner requirements at § 257.72. If the retrofit process changed the waste boundary for the new surface impoundment, then a new groundwater monitoring system will need to be installed. An additional 14 months could be needed for proper installation and sampling of the new groundwater monitoring system. If a new groundwater monitoring system is needed the wastestreams can only be diverted into the newly retrofitted CCR surface impoundment once the initial sampling of the new groundwater monitoring system is complete. If the waste boundary of the retrofitted surface impoundment does not change, then a new groundwater monitoring system may not be needed, eliminating the need for the additional 14 months.
Some stakeholders have indicated that they are utilizing multiple alternate capacity technologies,
The time needed to construct alternate capacity for both CCR and non-CCR wastestreams is critical in determining how much time facilities truly need to cease receipt of waste. The previous section of this preamble discussed the various approaches a facility may develop and incorporate alternate capacity into plant operations to enable CCR surface impoundments to cease receipt of waste and initiate closure. The following summarizes the approaches and the average time required for each:
By using the construction and implementation timeframes summarized above for the various alternate capacity approaches the average amount of time required to obtain alternate capacity is 22.5 months. This timeframe, although an average, would appear to provide enough time for a substantial proportion of facilities to comply. It is only 1.5 months longer than the average time estimated to be needed to construct a non-CCR wastewater basin, as well as the outer bound of the time needed to construct a wastewater treatment facility, and the shortest amount of time needed to construct a multiple technology system. The primary outliers would be facilities converting to dry handling or retrofitting an existing CCR surface impoundment. However, many facilities have already converted to dry handling; EPA estimates that approximately 80% of coal-fired plants that at one time employed wet handling of CCR waste have already converted to dry handling.
The EPA has chosen to rely on a single average construction time to establish the new deadline for several reasons. First, as just discussed, 22.5 months would provide sufficient (but not excessive) time for a substantial proportion of facilities, under a variety of approaches. Second, EPA recognizes that some facilities will need less than the average amount of time to complete construction and some will need more. Each of the averages summarized above reflects ranges of estimated construction times, which can vary depending on site conditions and the specific facility operations. To reliably determine which facilities need less time, EPA would need to make individual facility-specific determinations. The EPA is concerned that trying to craft individualized time frames would ultimately result in longer delays in the initiation of closure for a greater number of facilities than would potentially be caused by reliance on an overall average that most facilities can meet. Based on similar concerns, EPA is proposing to establish an individualized variance process that is intended to be used infrequently to address unusual or unique situations; and to ensure that such requests are infrequent, EPA has attempted to craft a regulatory deadline that most facilities can confidently meet.
Although a single deadline has a number of advantages, EPA recognizes that a single deadline is necessarily less precise; some facilities may in fact be able to construct alternate capacity more quickly than EPA's proposed deadline. Therefore, EPA is considering an alternative under which the deadline would vary according to the technology adopted. For example, a facility that chose to install a non-CCR wastewater basin would have a different deadline than a facility that constructed a new wastewater treatment facility. The various timeframes could be based on the averages presented earlier in this section. The EPA is concerned that this option could be challenging to implement and track compliance. The EPA is also concerned that this approach may not result in measurably shorter time frames for most facilities, given the range of estimates discussed above, and could lead to a greater number of variance requests. EPA requests comment on this approach, including, for example, whether this more complicated regulatory approach will result in measurably shorter time frames for most facilities.
Accordingly, EPA considers 22.5 months to represent the fastest technically feasible timeframe needed to construct alternate capacity and for CCR surface impoundments to cease receipt of waste.
Therefore, EPA is proposing a new date of August 31, 2020 for facilities to cease placement of CCR and non-CCR wastestreams into unlined surface impoundments. The EPA believes, based on its technical feasibility analysis, that many facilities will be able to meet this date. The court's mandate for the
The EPA considered that the start of the 22.5 months could instead be from the
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to amend the regulatory language of § 257.101(a)(1) to delete the phrase, “if at any time after October 19, 2015 an owner or operator of an existing unlined CCR surface impoundment determines in any sampling event that the concentrations of one or more constituents listed in appendix IV to this part are detected at statistically significant levels above the groundwater protection standard established under § 257.95(h) for such CCR unit.” The proposed new regulatory language of § 257.101(a)(1) will read “Except as provided by paragraph (a)(3) of this section, no later than August 31, 2020, an owner or operator of an existing unlined CCR surface impoundment must cease placing CCR and non-CCR wastestreams into such CCR surface impoundment and either retrofit or close the CCR unit in accordance with the requirements of § 257.102.”
Additionally, EPA is making a conforming change to § 257.91(d)(2), which contained similar language. Specifically, EPA is deleting all of § 257.91(d)(2), which clarified how the closure requirement applied in the context of a groundwater monitoring system that covers multiple unlined impoundments. Since all unlined CCR impoundments must now close or retrofit, this clarification is no longer relevant.
The October 2020 date applied not only to the unlined leaking units subject to § 257.101(a), but also to the units that failed the minimum depth to aquifer location restriction standard subject to § 257.101(b)(1)(i). Therefore, EPA is proposing that the deadline to cease receipt of waste for these units also be amended to August 31, 2020. This new date was selected based on the same rationale explained previously. These units are similarly situated in that these facilities need additional time to develop alternate capacity to transition away from their surface impoundments. As previously discussed, based on the data from and information received from stakeholders, EPA calculated that the average amount of time to take the necessary steps to cease placement of waste into a surface impoundment is approximately 22.5 months. In addition, based on the data on facilities' public websites regarding compliance with the location restriction standards, the majority of the units that failed the aquifer location restriction are also unlined and must close under § 257.101(a). It is therefore logical to establish the same deadline of August 31, 2020 to cease receipt of waste. The EPA believes it is technically infeasible for a majority of these units in question to be able to cease receipt of waste prior to August 31, 2020 due to the lack of alternate capacities and the immediate initiation of closure that requires units to cease receiving waste that would cause disruptions to operations at the power plants. Therefore, EPA is proposing the date of August 31, 2020 for the cease placement of waste for § 257.101(b)(1)(i) to replace the current date of October 31, 2020 established in the July 2018 Final Rule.
The amended regulatory language of § 257.101(b)(1)(i) would read “Except as provided by paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the owner or operator of an existing CCR surface impoundment that has not demonstrated compliance with the location standard specified in § 257.60(a) must cease placing CCR and non-CCR wastestreams into such CCR unit no later than August 31, 2020, and close the CCR unit in accordance with the requirements of § 257.102.”
The information that EPA has reviewed indicates that some facilities will be unable to cease receiving waste by the new deadline of August 31, 2020. In some cases, it may be due to circumstances beyond the facility's control, such as extreme weather. Similarly, delays may result from permitting requirements; as previously discussed some states do not allow construction to begin until all permits have been issued. In addition, the
Currently the regulations allow the continued use of CCR units due to the lack of alternate capacity for CCR, under the alternate closure requirements in § 257.103. The current alternate closure provision of § 257.103(a) allows for the continued use of a CCR unit for disposal of CCR if there is no alternate capacity available, on-site and off-site. This provision grants a facility up to 5 years to find alternate capacity for the CCR. Once additional capacity is found, the CCR unit must cease receipt of waste and initiate closure.
Additionally, under § 257.103(b), a facility may continue to operate a CCR unit and receive CCR if they are planning to cease operation of the coal-fired boilers by a date certain. Under this provision, since the boiler is ceasing operation and CCR will no longer be generated after a known date, the facility will not have to find alternate capacity. For surface impoundments 40 acres or smaller the boiler must cease operation and the CCR surface impoundment must complete closure by October 17, 2023. For a surface impoundment larger than 40 acres, the boiler must cease operation and the CCR surface impoundment must complete closure by October 17, 2028. For landfills the coal-fired boiler must cease operation and complete closure no later than April 19, 2021.
However, both provisions only allow for the continued receipt of CCR past the deadline in §§ 257.101(a), (b)(1), and (d). The alternate closure provisions in § 257.103 do not address the situations in which a facility needs alternate capacity for non-CCR wastestreams.
To address this, EPA is proposing a series of amendments to the alternate closure requirements in § 257.103(a) and (b) that will coordinate with the new regulatory framework governing the closure of CCR surface impoundments. The EPA is proposing two new subparagraphs specific to CCR surface impoundments: § 257.103(e), which would establish a short-term extension to the new cease receipt of waste deadline in § 257.101; and § 257.103(f), which would establish the process and criteria for facilities to obtain a site-specific extension based on one of two demonstrations that additional time is needed to cease receipt of waste in the unit. Rather than amending the alternate cease receipt of waste deadlines for CCR surface impoundments (§§ 257.103(a) and (b)), which could potentially cause complications for the CCR landfills that are also covered under those provisions, EPA is proposing to establish separate provisions to comprehensively address the issues specific to the closure of CCR surface impoundments.
The short-term extension under § 257.103(e) would grant facilities a three-month extension to continue to receive CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams in order to complete the development of alternate capacity. This short-term alternative is designed to be self-implementing and for units that need three additional months or less to complete the necessary measures to achieve cease receipt of waste into the CCR surface impoundment in question. For units that qualify under this provision, the deadline to cease receipt of waste and initiate closure would be no later than November 30, 2020. The site-specific alternate to initiation of closure (at § 257.103(f)) will allow facilities to submit a demonstration to EPA or the Participating State Director for approval, either requesting the exact amount of time necessary to complete the measures to obtain alternate capacity, with a maximum of 5 years, or requesting an extension based on a showing that the risks of continued operation of the impoundment will be offset by the shorter time to complete closure. The EPA is proposing that facilities could rely on either § 257.103(e) or (f) to obtain additional time to operate a unit but could not rely on both to aggregate the maximum time periods authorized.
The EPA is proposing to allow all CCR surface impoundments required to close under § 257.101(a), and (b) to be eligible for these two alternative timeframes to initiate closure. The July 2018 final rule extended the deadlines to cease receipt of waste for all units required to close under § 257.101(a) (unlined leaking impoundments) and for a subset of units required to close under § 257.101(b) (the surface impoundments that failed the aquifer location restriction); therefore, owner or operators of those units anticipated having to cease receipt of waste no later than October 2020. However, some of those facilities have demonstrated that it will not be technically feasible to reroute the non-CCR wastestreams and create alternate capacity within that timeframe. In addition, the
The EPA acknowledges that the time frames used to develop the August 2020 deadline were estimated average durations and in reality, due to unique circumstances, it may take some facilities slightly longer than others to cease receipt of waste. To accommodate those facilities that require some additional time to complete construction, EPA is proposing that such facilities demonstrate and certify that they will need additional time before they have the technically feasibility to able to cease receipt of waste and initiate closure. The provision, which is proposed at § 257.103(e), would allow for no more than a three-month extension, which means that the latest that a facility could continue to operate a CCR surface impoundment under this provision would be November 30, 2020. The EPA acknowledges that events can occur which are completely out of the facility's control, such as extreme weather or a delay in material fabrication. In essence, this would be a limited “force majeur” provision.
The owner or operator would have to certify that the facility continues to lack alternate capacity to manage their CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams, and that it was technically infeasible to meet the August 31, 2020 deadline to cease receipt of waste and initiate closure. This certification, along with the supporting documentation, would then be placed into the operating record and posted on the facility website, for the unit in question, and sent to EPA as a notification. This process grants the unit up to a three-month extension to allow the unit to continue to operate until construction is complete, or until November 30, 2020, whichever is earlier, without further action by EPA. The requirements of the certification are similar to the requirements of § 257.103(a). The owner or operator would have to certify the following: (1) No alternative disposal capacity is available on-site or off-site (an increase in costs or inconvenience is not sufficient support); (2) The owner or operator has made and continues to make efforts to obtain additional capacity; and (3) The owner or operator is (and must remain) in compliance with all other requirements of part 257. A brief narrative of each component of the certification would be required to explain why a three-month extension is necessary. The certification is to be placed in the facility's operating record, placed on the facility's CCR website, and submitted to EPA as a notification of the facility's intent to comply with the alternate deadline under this provision.
The EPA is proposing to make this extension self-implementing because it is of such short duration. Facilities will need to have fundamentally completed construction in order for a three-month extension to be useful. Moreover, were
The EPA is proposing to amend the regulatory language of § 257.103 and add a new paragraph, § 257.103(e), to reflect this proposal. The EPA is seeking comment on whether the short-term alternate cease receipt of waste deadline should be only for non-CCR wastestreams rather than CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams.
The EPA acknowledges that the timeframe used to reach the new deadline of August 31, 2020 was a calculated average and that some facilities will need more time for CCR surface impoundments to cease receipt of waste than a three-month extension. To accommodate the units that will need longer than November 30, 2020 to complete their arrangements, EPA is proposing to establish a site-specific alternative (at § 257.103(f)) that would allow the owner or operator to seek approval from EPA or the Participating State Director to continue to operate the CCR surface impoundment for a specified amount of time. The EPA is proposing two bases on which a facility can obtain a site-specific deadline to cease receipt of waste: (1) A demonstration that development of alternate capacity for CCR and/or non-CCR cannot be completed prior to November 30, 2020; and (2) a demonstration of lack of capacity and permanent cessation of coal-fired boiler(s) by a date certain. These two bases generally mirror the existing provisions at §§ 257.103(a) and (b). As noted, EPA is proposing to consolidate the new procedures applicable to initiating the closure of CCR surface impoundments into separate sections to avoid inadvertently affecting the requirements for CCR landfills.
To obtain approval from EPA or the Participating State Director for the first method, the owner or operator must demonstrate that it is not technically feasible to complete the development/installation of alternate capacity prior to November 30, 2020. In this demonstration, the facility will need to present in detail the specifics of the process they are undertaking to develop alternate capacities for the necessary CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams to support the claim that additional time is necessary. To obtain approval from EPA or the Participating State Director for the second method, the owner or operator must demonstrate that the facility will permanently cease operation of the coal fired boiler(s) by a date certain and that there is currently no alternate capacity available on site or off site for the CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams. In this demonstration the owner or operator will have to provide a plan for mitigating the potential risks from the CCR surface impoundment for the duration of the continued operation of the CCR surface impoundment until the expedited closure of the unit. This alternative would allow the facilities that are currently closing in accordance with § 257.103(b) to continue to receive non-CCR wastestreams, as well as CCR. Neither demonstrations may rely solely on cost considerations as EPA cannot grant additional time on this basis. See
The EPA is seeking comment on whether the site-specific alternatives to the cease receipt of waste deadline should be only for non-CCR wastestreams rather than CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams. If the site-specific alternatives only applied for facilities with the need for continued disposal of non-CCR wastestreams in CCR surface impoundments, EPA would not be amending §§ 257.103(a) and (b). As such, EPA is seeking comment on whether the site-specific alternatives should be only for non-CCR wastestreams.
The EPA is proposing that the owner or operator must demonstrate the time needed to obtain alternate capacity and cease receipt of waste for CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams to be submitted to EPA or the Participating State Director at § 257.103(f)(1). The demonstration must include a detailed narrative of the plan the facility is implementing to obtain alternate capacity so that their units that must initiate closure can cease receipt of waste. The demonstration must show that it is technically infeasible to manage the CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams on-site or off-site other than in the CCR surface impoundment in question. The EPA is proposing to require that the demonstration for each unit provide the lines of evidence to document that the facility lacks capacity for CCR or non-CCR wastestreams: (1) A demonstration of the lack of alternate capacity available on-site or off-site; (2) a demonstration that CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams must continue to be managed in the CCR surface impoundment due to the technical infeasibility of obtaining alternate capacity prior to November 30, 2020; this demonstration must include an analysis of the adverse impact to plant operations if the CCR surface impoundment in question were to no longer be available for use; (3) a detailed workplan on obtaining alternate capacity for CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams; and (4) a narrative on how the owner or operator will continue to maintain compliance with all other aspects of the CCR rule.
The first and second lines of evidence are the same lines of evidence required in § 257.103(a). The owner or operator must demonstrate that the CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams must continue to be managed in the CCR surface impoundment due to the technical infeasibility of alternate capacity being available sooner than November 30, 2020. An increase in costs or the inconvenience of existing capacity is insufficient support to qualify for this alternative. If the owner or operator provides no evidence other than increased cost or inconvenience, EPA will consider the submission incomplete and will return it to the owner/operator without further action. The owner/operator may resubmit the demonstration with the appropriate evidence (
The third proposed line of evidence in the demonstration is a detailed workplan on the development and process to achieve alternate handling capacity for CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams. The EPA is proposing that the workplan include the following elements at § 257.103(f)(1)(i)(D): (1) A narrative discussion of the steps and process that remain necessary to complete development of alternate capacity for the wastestream(s); (2) a visual timeline depicting the remaining steps needed to obtain alternate capacity; (3) a discussion of the timeline and the processes that occur during each step; and (4) a discussion of the steps already taken to achieve alternate capacity including what steps have been completed and what steps remain. The EPA believes facilities should already have most of these workplan elements developed as part of their planning process for CCR surface impoundments to cease receipt of waste.
The narrative discussion of the workplan is designed to explain to the EPA how alternate capacity will be developed with an explanation as to why that method was chosen over others. An owner or operator may choose from several options to obtain alternate capacity, such as building a new disposal unit, construction of a wastewater treatment facility, converting to dry handling, etc. The narrative discussion should describe why the option was selected and explain why other options that could have been implemented sooner were not selected. This discussion should include an in-depth analysis of the site and the site-specific conditions that led to the decision to implement the selected alternate capacity. Inclusion of visuals such as a facility map, facility process flow diagram, the design of the new capacity, etc. would be beneficial to any discussion on the new capacity and of the facility as a whole. The narrative must also explain why the owner or operator needs the amount of time being requested.
The second section of the workplan should include a visual timeline, such as a Gantt chart, depicting the necessary steps required to obtain the alternate capacity discussed in the narrative. A visual timeline clearly indicates how each phase and the steps within that phase interact with each other and the other phases. It will also show any possible overlap of the steps and phases in achieving alternate capacity. This timeline will show the total time needed to obtain the alternate capacity and how long each step is expected to take. For an example of a timeline see Southern Company's comments from the March 2018 Phase One Proposed rule in the docket
The proposed third section for the workplan is a detailed narrative of the schedule and a timeline of all the necessary phases and steps in the workplan, in addition to the overall timeframe that will be realistically required to obtain capacity and cease receipt of waste. The owner or operator should identify the time required for each phase and step accurately to obtain alternate capacity. For an example of a good narrative and description of the processes on obtaining alternate capacity, see Declaration of Jeffery Jenkins, Arizona Public Service in the docket.
This section of the workplan should discuss why the length of time for each phase and step is needed, including a discussion of the tasks that occur during the specific stage of obtaining alternate capacity. The workplan should discuss why each major step shown on the chart is necessary to happen in the order it is occurring, including a justification for the overall length of the phase. It should also discuss the tasks that occur during each of the major steps within the phase; for example, rather than simply stating “order and fabrication of impoundment liner,” the workplan would need to discuss what material must be ordered, where the fabrication takes places, and how long it takes to fabricate and deliver the new liner material. Other major discussion items on the overall time of the schedule should include anticipated worker schedule, and any anticipated areas for which the schedule could slip. The anticipated areas of delays could include items outside of the facility's control, such as severe weather events or delays in fabrication of materials. The schedule should also indicate the time limiting factors in completing the plan, such as having to take boilers off-line or if a certain step can only happen during a specific time of year. The schedule should indicate the fastest technically feasible timeline.
The proposed fourth section of the workplan contains a narrative of the steps already taken to initiate closure and develop alternate capacities for the CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams. This section would discuss all the steps taken, starting from when the owner or operator started the design phase all the way up to the current steps occuring while the workplan is being drafted and submitted for approval. In addition, this discussion should indicate where the facility currently is on the timeline and the processes that are currently being undertaken at the facility to develop the selected alternate capacity. This section of the workplan assists EPA in determining if the submitted schedule for obtaining alternate capacity is accurate.
The overall workplan would need to document the efforts the owner or operator has put into obtaining alternate capacities, the various methods researched for alternate capacity, and the planning for the alternate capacity for the wastestreams that needs to be redirected from the CCR surface impoundment. The EPA seeks comment on additional elements the workplan should contain.
The fourth line of evidence that would be required in the demonstration is a compliance strategy for the CCR surface impoundment in question. The EPA is proposing that to obtain approval for an extension for the cease receipt of waste date, the CCR surface impoundment in question must remain in compliance with all other aspects of the CCR rule. This includes the requirement to conduct any necessary corrective action and continual groundwater monitoring. This line of evidence also includes compliance with other requirements of the rule. The facilities' CCR compliance website must be completely up-to-date and contain all the necessary notification postings. The strategy would discuss the most recent groundwater monitoring data results, the statistical analysis used to obtain the results, and the next steps for the groundwater monitoring. If the unit has exceeded any of the Appendix IV GWPS, the owner or operator must conduct an assessment of corrective measures followed by selection of a remedy. The current regulations do not permit waiting to implement a remedy
Once a complete demonstration is submitted to EPA or the Participating State Director for approval, EPA or the Participating State Director will review the demonstration for completeness and post a tentative approval or denial. The approval and implementation process will be discussed later in this preamble in paragraph (e) of this section.
Currently under § 257.103(b)(1), a CCR unit that would otherwise be required to cease receiving CCR under § 257.101(a), (b)(1), or (d), may continue to receive CCR provided the owner or operator of the facility certifies that the facility will cease operation of the coal-fired boilers within the timeframes specified in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4) and that the CCR generated at that facility (before the plant ceases to operate) must continue to be managed in that unit due to the absence of alternative disposal capacity both on-site and off-site. In such cases, the unit is allowed to continue receiving CCR (and only CCR wastestreams), provided the facility completes closure of the unit by the dates specified: 2023 or 2028 for surface impoundments less than 40 acres or more than 40 acres, respectively. In contrast to subsection (a), under § 257.103(b), the owner or operator does not need to demonstrate any efforts to develop alternative capacity because of the impending closure of the power plant itself. As explained in the 2015 preamble, there are long-term risks to human health and the environment from a leaking CCR unit and those risks justify requiring those units to either meet the federal criteria or close. However, EPA concluded that the risks associated with allowing these units to continue to receive CCR would be mitigated by the requirement that the facility comply with all other requirements of the rule, including initiating groundwater monitoring and corrective action where necessary. Critically, facilities that choose to rely on this alternative must complete closure of their disposal unit in an expedited timeframe; thus, the risks from these units will be fully addressed sooner. Consequently, EPA concluded that while over the short term the risks will be higher, however, in the long term, the risks may be potentially lower than if the CCR unit had closed in accordance with the normal closure timeframes. See 80 FR 21424 (April 17, 2015). These principles continue to apply. Since the coal-boiler will shortly cease power generation, it would be illogical to require these facilities to construct new capacity to manage CCR and non-CCR wastestreams. The EPA is therefore proposing to adopt a comparable provision in § 257.103(f)(2), which will allow facilities permanently ceasing operation of coal-fired boiler(s) to continue to receive both CCR and non-CCR wastestreams, upon a showing of a continued need to use the surface impoundment.
Specifically, EPA is proposing that facilities would need to submit a demonstration to EPA or the Participating State Director for approval that includes all of the following elements. First, the facility would need to document that no alternative disposal capacity is available on-site or off-site. This is the same showing currently required under § 257.103(b). Consistent with the existing provision, an increase in costs or the inconvenience of existing capacity is not sufficient to support qualification under this section.
Second, EPA is proposing that the facility submit a plan to mitigate any potential risks to human health or the environment from the CCR surface impoundment. This plan could include: A discussion of the groundwater monitoring data and any found exceedances, the assessment of corrective measures (if necessary from the groundwater monitoring data), steps to keep the public aware of any possible risks from the impoundment, a plan to ensure that drinking water wells are not contaminated and if they are the steps to ensure the public has access to clean drinking water, etc. This would be a new requirement; because the current provision at § 257.103(b) does not authorize continued use of the impoundment for non-CCR wastewaters, and the record for that provision does not account for those risks. As previously explained, EPA lacks the data and time required to develop national estimates of the risks from continued operation of these units over the short term. The EPA is seeking comment on whether the owner or operator should be required to submit a more in-depth site-specific risk assessment of the CCR surface impoundment as part of their plan to mitigate the risk from the unit.
The remaining elements are the same as those currently found in § 257.103(b). The facility must certify that it remains in compliance with all other requirements of this subpart and must document that the coal-fired boilers and closure of the impoundment will be completed within the timeframes specified in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section. The deadlines of 2023 for surface impoundments less than 40 acres and 2028 for surface impoundments larger than 40 acres, respectively, were selected to ensure (1) that closure of these units will be completed in a measurably shorter timeframe; and (2) that overall the risks will be lower, or at least equivalent to, the level of risk that would be achieved under the rule's “standard” closure timeframes. Unlike the other provisions in this proposal, § 257.103(f)(2) does not establish a specific deadline by which the facility must stop operating the impoundment. Nevertheless, the expedited closure timeframes will effectively work to limit the additional time that facilities can continue to receive waste. Given the length of time needed to dewater an impoundment, EPA expects that in many instances, facilities will not be able to extend operation of the unit substantially and still be able to complete closure by the deadline. The RIA that accompanies this proposed rulemaking action estimates that approximately 37 facilities will apply for an extension under this provision.
The EPA acknowledges that projects can run behind schedule and events may occur outside the facility's control. Therefore, EPA is proposing that in such cases, a facility may request an extension to the approved deadline under § 257.103 (f)(1). However, EPA is proposing a maximum of 5 years that could be authorized under paragraph (f)(1). This means that no extension could extend past the maximum cease receipt of waste deadline of October 15, 2023. If at any point a facility becomes aware that they will not meet the approved deadline, they would need to notify EPA or the Participating State Director. Depending on the severity of the event, additional time may be granted provided it would not extend past the maximum cease receipt of waste deadline of October 15, 2023. The EPA is proposing this potential extension in § 257.103(f)(1)(iii). To obtain an extension of the approved compliance deadline, the facility must
To provide transparency to the public that the facility is following the approved alternate compliance deadline, EPA is proposing to require posting on the facility's CCR publicly accessible website of semi-annual progress reports on obtaining alternate capacity. Given that these units could be operating and receiving waste for several additional years, it is important to keep the public aware of the facility's progress on obtaining alternate capacity. It is also important for EPA to know if facilities are on track to meet their new alternate compliance deadline.
Currently in § 257.103(c) there is the requirement for annual progress reports for the units who have certified for alternative deadlines under §§ 257.103(a) and (b). The EPA believes that for the site-specific alternate cease receipt of waste deadline, semi-annual rather than annual progress reports are more appropriate. The time allowed under this new alternate in § 257.103(f), will vary site to site and could be shorter than the deadline alternative granted for §§ 257.103(a) and (b). Accordingly, EPA believes the reporting frequency should also be more frequent for the progress reports. Therefore, EPA is proposing a new semi-annual progress report requirement for the units that successfully demonstrate and are approved for the site-specific alternate to cease receipt of waste deadline. The proposed regulation text for the requirement of semi-annual progress reports will be located in § 257.103(f)(1)(ix).
The semi-annual progress report will heavily rely on the workplan and the timeline submitted with the workplan. The EPA is proposing the reports contain the following components: (1) Discussion on progress of obtaining alternate capacity and (2) discussion of any planned operational changes at the facility. The first section of the report would discuss the progress the facility has made since the previous report or if it is the first report, since approval of the alternate compliance deadline.
The first section of the report would be required to discuss the following: (1) The current stage of obtaining alternate capacity in reference to the timeline required in the workplan; (2) whether the owner or operator is on schedule for obtaining alternate capacity; (3) any problems encountered and a description of the actions taken to resolve the problems; and (4) the goals for the next 6 months and major milestones to be achieved. The first subsection discussion would indicate what phase of the workplan timeline is currently happening at the site and what has been accomplished in the past 6 months. This discussion would include the major milestones that were accomplished over the past 6 months. The second subsection would discuss if the facility is on schedule to obtain alternate capacity by the approved alternate deadline for cease receipt of waste. This section would discuss if the facility is expecting to meet their deadline or if they are anticipating being ahead or behind schedule. If the facility is behind schedule, the discussion would be required to indicate what steps are necessary to either catch up to the approved schedule or if they are expecting to ask for an extension, how much more time is needed. The third subsection would discuss whether any problems were encountered, and a description of the actions taken to resolve those problems. This subsection could potentially tie in to the previous subsection's discussion of if the project is on track. It is possible a problem arose causing a delay in the schedule; such problems would need to be discussed in detail in this section. This could include a delay of delivery of equipment, severe weather, delay of a permit, etc. There would need to be a thorough discussion of what caused the problem, the effects of the problem, and the plan to resolve the problem. It is also possible problems were encountered that did not result in a delay of the schedule; these too should be discussed in this subsection. This demonstrates that the facility is able to resolve problems quickly without affecting the project's deadline. The last subsection would discuss the goals for the next 6 months and major milestones to be achieved. This subsection makes the public and EPA aware of the progress the facility plans on achieving in the coming months, up until the next semi-annual progress report is due.
The EPA is seeking comment regarding whether a facility that is fully on schedule or ahead of schedule with the approved timeline from their demonstration and no significant problems have arisen or changes in operational status, should be afforded a relaxation of the reporting requirements to complete the first two subsections of the first section of the semi-annual progress reports. In the semi-annual progress reports the facility would indicate the stage they are currently on (as specified in § 257.103(f)(1)(ix)(A)(
The second section of the progress reports would discuss any planned operation changes of the facility. It is possible while the facility is working to achieve alternate capacity, a decision is made to either permanently shut down the plant or switch to an alternate fuel source such as natural gas or biomass. Any such decisions would be indicated in this section of the semi-annual progress report.
The EPA is proposing that the semi-annual reports be completed and placed in the facility's operating record and posted on the facility's CCR web page on April 1st and October 1st of each year until the alternate compliance deadline. The first report will be due on whichever posting deadline is soonest after approval of the alternate compliance deadline is granted. The most current progress report should not replace any previous version of the semi-annual progress report on the facility's website. Therefore, the facility is expected to maintain the previous reports on their website. The EPA seeks comment on whether the dates of April 1 and October 1 are appropriate or whether alternate months should be selected. The RIA which accompanies this proposed rulemaking action estimates the cost associated with the additional documentation required by the rule's provisions in Chapter 3.
The EPA is proposing that the demonstrations for further time under § 257.103(f)(1) be submitted to EPA or the Participating State Director for approval no later than June 30, 2020, or 2 months prior to the facility's deadline to cease receiving waste. This deadline would also apply to any extensions requested under § 257.103(f)(1)(iii). Two months should normally provide sufficient time for EPA to evaluate the request and complete its review process. The EPA acknowledges that the review
Upon receiving the demonstration for an alternate compliance deadline, EPA or the Participating State Director will evaluate the demonstration and could ask for additional information to complete its review and/or discuss the demonstration with the facility. Submission of a complete demonstration will toll, or to suspend, the facility's deadline to cease receipt of waste until issuance of a final decision. This ensures that a facility that has submitted a package in good faith would not be penalized by any inadvertent administrative delays. However incomplete submissions will not toll the facility's deadline; here the equities lie squarely against granting any more time.
When the owner or operator submits the demonstration to EPA or the Participating State Director for approval, the owner or operator must prepare and place into the facility's operating record and on their CCR website a notice of intent of applying for the site-specific alternative to cease receipt of waste. The EPA or the Participating State Director will then post the proposed decision to grant or deny the request in whole or in part on EPA's website for public notice and comment. The public will have 15 days to comment on the proposed decision. If the demonstration is particularly complex, EPA or the Participating State Director will provide a longer comment period of 20 to 30 days. The EPA acknowledges that the comment period is shorter than normal; however, this is a unique circumstance where the Agency needs to establish a new compliance deadline for the facility. The EPA or the Participating State Director will evaluate the comments and amend its decision accordingly. The EPA will post the final decision on the demonstrations on EPA's website.
The EPA or the Participating State Director will finalize the decision on the alternate compliance deadline no later than 4 months after receiving a complete demonstration. This is the longest amount of time EPA expects it should take to issue a final decision, although as noted above, EPA believes it should normally take less time. If no substantive comments are received on a proposed decision, it will become effective 5 days from the close of the comment period.
The facility must post an approved or denied demonstration and alternate compliance deadline decision on the facility's public CCR website. The EPA is seeking comment on whether a Participating State Director (
To create a consistent framework for all CCR impoundments, EPA is also proposing a series of amendments to the § 257.103 introductory paragraph and at §§ 257.103(a), (b), and (c). Amending these sections of § 257.103, will simplify the framework for units that require more time to the cease receipt of waste deadline triggered by either §§ 257.101(a), (b)(1), or (d). Additionally, EPA is proposing to amend §§ 257.103(a) and (b) to only be applicable to CCR landfills.
The EPA is proposing to revise the introductory paragraph to § 257.103 to add the phrase “and/or non-CCR wastestreams” and to add references to the proposed new paragraphs (e) and (f) to § 257.103 for the short-term alternative and the alternate compliance deadline respectively. The introductory paragraph would read as: “The owner or operator of a CCR landfill, CCR surface impoundment, or any lateral expansion of a CCR unit that is subject to closure pursuant to 257.101(a), (b)(1), or (d) may continue to receive CCR and/or non-CCR in the unit provided the owner or operator meets the requirements of either paragraph (a), (b), (e), or (f) of this section.”
The EPA is proposing conforming revisions to §§ 257.103(a) and (b) to reflect the proposals discussed above. The current §§ 257.103(a) and (b) apply to both CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments undergoing closure under § 257.101 that need additional time to find alternate capacity only for CCR wastestreams. To be consistent with the proposals in §§ 257.103 (e) and (f), EPA is proposing to amend §§ 257.103(a) and (b) to only apply to CCR landfills. Some facilities have posted certifications under the current § 257.103(a) and (b) to allow continued receipt of CCR into their surface impoundment. For these facilities, EPA will either implement a transition period to allow sufficient time to complete the documentation that may be required under §§ 257.103 (e) or (f) for their CCR surface impoundments, or, for those facilities that need to continue to receive only CCR into the impoundment, a system that would grandfather these units in. The EPA asks for comment on each of these options. To reflect this proposed change the references to § 257.101(a) and (b)(1) are being removed, as those sections apply only to CCR surface impoundments. Additionally, EPA is proposing to revise the term “CCR unit” to “CCR landfill” to ensure clarity that §§ 257.103(a) and (b) apply only to CCR landfills.
When EPA amended the cease receipt of waste date in the July 2018 rule in §§ 257.101(a) and (b)(1), EPA neglected to make the conforming changes to the notification requirements in § 257.103(c). Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend the notification requirements in § 257.103(c) with the necessary conforming changes due to the change in the cease receipt of waste date and in light of the
The EPA estimated the costs and benefits of this action in an Economic Analysis (EA) which is available in the
EPA updates the 2015 CCR final rule baseline to account for two developments. These are the availability of new publicly accessible universe data and the effect of the 2018 court decisions. These updates increase the baseline costs estimated for the CCR program against which the RIA estimates the incremental effects of this proposed rulemaking action.
The RIA estimates that the net annualized impact of this proposed regulation will be annual cost savings of $39.5 million. This action is not considered an economically significant action under Executive Order 12866.
The proposed rule affects coal fired electric utility plants (assigned to the utility sector North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 22). The rule is estimated to potentially impact 522 units at 230 facilities.
The costs attributable to this proposed rule are reporting and documentation that must be completed by regulated entities and submitted to EPA in order to qualify for some of the closure deadline extension provisions of the rule as well as other reporting requirements related to the closure of CCR units. These costs are estimated to amount to an annualized $0.204 million per year when discounting at 7%.
The cost savings attributable to this proposed rule include cost savings from extending the deadlines by which units must cease receiving waste and initiate closure. Cost savings also follow from the avoided cost of new unit construction for CCR units associated with qualified coal fired boilers which are closing by 2023 or 2028. Overall, the proposed rule is expected to result in net cost savings of an annualized $39.5 million when discounting at 7%.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review because it raises novel legal or policy issues. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is available in the docket and is summarized in section VI of this preamble.
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated costs of this proposed rule can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1189.32. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
The information to be collected as a part of this rule includes applications for the two alternatives to cease receipt or waste deadlines. These applications are to ensure that the alternatives are used only by facilities for which the August 31, 2020 cease receipt of waste date is technically unfeasible.
Applications for the short term alternative deadline must certify the following: (1) No alternative disposal capacity is available on-site or off-site (an increase in costs or inconvenience is not sufficient support); (2) The owner or operator has made and continues to make efforts to obtain additional capacity; and (3) The owner or operator is (and must remain) in compliance with all other requirements of part 257. A brief narrative of each component of the certification would be required to explain why a three-month extension is necessary.
Applications for the site specific alternative deadline must certify the following: (1) A demonstration of the lack of alternate capacity available on-site or off-site; (2) a demonstration that CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams must continue to be managed in the CCR surface impoundment due to the technical infeasibility of obtaining alternate capacity prior to November 30, 2020; this demonstration must include an analysis of the adverse impact to plant operations if the CCR surface impoundment in question were to no longer be available for use; (3) a detailed workplan on obtaining alternate capacity for CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams; and (4) a narrative on how the owner or operator will continue to maintain compliance with all other aspects of the CCR rule. Facilities that intend to continue to generate electricity from their coal fired boilers must also post semi-annual progress reports on obtaining alternative capacity on their publicly available website, while facilities with coal fired boilers closing by a date certain must submit a plan to EPA to mitigate any potential risks to human health and the environment from their CCR surface impoundment.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action is expected to result in net cost savings of an annualized $39.5 million per year. These cost savings will accrue to all regulated entities. We have therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities. EPA requests comment on the effect of this rule on regulated small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. The costs involved in this action are imposed only by participation in a voluntary federal program. UMRA generally excludes from the definition of “federal intergovernmental mandate” duties that arise from participation in a voluntary federal program.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. For the “Final Rule: Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities” published April 17, 2015 (80 FR 21302), EPA identified three of the 414 coal-fired electric utility plants (in operation as of 2012) as being located on tribal lands; however, they are not owned by tribal governments. These are: (1) Navajo Generating Station in Coconino County, Arizona, owned by the Arizona Salt River Project; (2) Bonanza Power Plant in Uintah County, Utah, owned by the Deseret Generation and Transmission Cooperative; and (3) Four Corners Power Plant in San Juan County, New Mexico owned by the Arizona Public Service Company. The Navajo Generating Station and the Four Corners Power Plant are on lands belonging to the Navajo Nation, while the Bonanza Power Plant is located on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation of the Ute Indian Tribe. Under the WIIN Act, EPA is the permitting authority for CCR units located in Indian Country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in the document titled “Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Residuals,” which is available in the docket for the final rule as docket item EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-11993.
As ordered by E.O. 13045 Section 1-101(a), for the “Final Rule: Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities” published April 17, 2015 (80 FR 21302), EPA identified and assessed environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children in the revised risk assessment. The results of the screening assessment found that risks fell below the criteria when wetting and run-on/runoff controls required by the rule are considered. Under the full probabilistic analysis, composite liners required by the rule for new waste management units showed the ability to reduce the 90th percentile child cancer and non-cancer risks for the groundwater to drinking water pathway to well below EPA's criteria. Additionally, the groundwater monitoring and corrective action required by the rule reduced risks from current waste management units. This action does not adversely affect these requirements and EPA believes that this rule will be protective of children's health.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. For the 2015 CCR rule, EPA analyzed the potential impact on electricity prices relative to the “in excess of one percent” threshold. Using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM), EPA concluded that the 2015 CCR Rule may increase the weighted average nationwide wholesale price of electricity between 0.18 percent and 0.19 percent in the years 2020 and 2030, respectively. As the proposed rule represents a cost savings rule relative to the 2015 CCR rule, this analysis concludes that any potential impact on wholesale electricity prices will be lower than the potential impact estimated of the 2015 CCR rule; therefore, this proposed rule is not expected to meet the criteria of a “significant adverse effect” on the electricity markets as defined by Executive Order 13211.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the CCR rule which is available in the docket for the 2015 CCR final rule as docket item EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-12034.
The EPA's risk assessment did not separately evaluate either minority or low-income populations. However, to evaluate the demographic characteristics of communities that may be affected by the CCR rule, the RIA compares the demographic characteristics of populations surrounding coal-fired electric utility plants with broader population data for two geographic areas: (1) One-mile radius from CCR management units (
For the population as a whole 24.8 percent belong to a minority group and 11.3 percent falls below the Federal Poverty Level. For the population living within one mile of plants with surface impoundments 16.1 percent belong to a minority group and 13.2 percent live below the Federal Poverty Level. These minority and low-income populations are not disproportionately high compared to the general population. The percentage of minority residents of the entire population living within the catchment areas downstream of surface impoundments is disproportionately high relative to the general population,
Comparing the population percentages of minority and low income residents within one mile of landfills to those percentages in the general population, EPA found that minority and low-income residents make up a smaller percentage of the populations near landfills than they do in the general population,
The CCR rule is risk-reducing with reductions in risk occurring largely within the surface water catchment zones around, and groundwater beneath, coal-fired electric utility plants. Since the CCR rule is risk-reducing and this action does not add to risks, this action will not result in new disproportionate risks to minority or low-income populations.
Environmental protection, Waste treatment and disposal.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6907(a)(3), 6912(a)(1), 6944(a), 6945(d); 33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e).
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) The owner or operator of the CCR unit determines that the CCR unit is not constructed with a liner that meets the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this section; or
(ii) The owner or operator of the CCR unit fails to document whether the CCR unit was constructed with a liner that meets the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this section.
(a) * * *
(1) Except as provided by paragraph (a)(3) of this section, no later than August 31, 2020, an owner or operator of an existing unlined CCR surface impoundment must cease placing CCR and non-CCR wastestreams into such CCR surface impoundment and either retrofit or close the CCR unit in accordance with the requirements of § 257.102.
(b) * * *
(1)(i)
The additions and revisions read as follows:
The owner or operator of a CCR landfill, CCR surface impoundment, or any lateral expansion of a CCR unit that is subject to closure pursuant to § 257.101(a), (b)(1), or (d) may continue to receive CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams in the unit provided the owner or operator meets the requirements of either paragraph (a), (b), (e), or (f) of this section.
(a)(1)
(2) Once alternative capacity is available, the CCR landfill must cease receiving CCR and initiate closure following the timeframes in § 257.102(e) and (f).
(3) If no alternative capacity is identified within five years after the initial certification, the CCR landfill must cease receiving CCR and close in accordance with the timeframes in § 257.102(e) and (f).
(b)(1)
(2) [Reserved]
(3) [Reserved]
(c) * * *
(1) The owner or operator must prepare and place in the facility's operating record a notification of intent to comply with the alternative closure requirements of this section. The notification must describe why the CCR unit qualifies for the alternative closure provisions under either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, in addition to providing the documentation and certifications required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this section. The deadlines to prepare the notification are specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) If the CCR unit is closing pursuant to § 257.101(a)(1), the owner or operator must prepare the notification no later than August 31, 2020.
(ii) If the CCR unit is closing pursuant to § 257.101(b)(1), the owner or operator must prepare the notification no later than August 31, 2020.
(iii) If the CCR unit is closing pursuant to § 257.101(d)(1), the owner or operator must prepare the notification no later than six months after the date it is determined that the CCR unit is not in compliance with the requirements of § 257.64(a).
(e)(1)
(i) No alternative disposal capacity is available on-site or off-site. An increase in costs or the inconvenience of existing capacity is not sufficient to support qualification under this section;
(ii) The owner or operator has made, and continues to make, efforts to obtain additional capacity that will become available no later than November 30, 2020. Once alternative capacity is identified, the owner or operator must arrange to use such capacity as soon as feasible; and
(iii) The owner or operator must remain in compliance with all other requirements of this subpart, including the requirement to conduct any necessary corrective action. The owner or operator at all times bears responsibility for demonstrating qualification under this section. Failure to remain in compliance with any of the requirements of this subpart could result in the automatic loss of authorization under this section.
(2) Once alternative capacity is available, the CCR surface impoundment must cease receiving CCR and non-CCR wastestreams and initiate closure following the timeframes in § 257.102(e) and (f).
(3) If no alternative capacity is identified by November 30, 2020, the CCR surface impoundment must cease recieving CCR and non-CCR wastestreams and close in accordance with the timeframes in § 257.102(e) and (f).
(4) An owner or operator of a CCR surface impoundment that closes in accordance with paragraphs (e) of this section must complete the notices as specified in paragraphs (d) and (e)(4)(i) through (ii) of this section.
(i) No later than August 31, 2020 the owner or operator must prepare and place in the facility's operating record a notification of intent to comply with alternative closure requirements of this section. The notification must describe the factual basis to support the facility's conclusion that the CCR unit qualifies for the alternative closure provisions under this paragraph, in addition to providing the documentation and certifications required by this paragraph.
(ii) An owner or operator of a CCR surface impoundment must also prepare the notification of intent to close a CCR unit as required by § 257.102(g).
(f)
(1)
(i) To obtain approval under this paragraph, the owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment must submit a demonstration that includes documents all of the following:
(A) Documentation that no alternative disposal capacity is available on-site or off-site. An increase in costs or the inconvenience of existing capacity is not sufficient to support qualification under this section;
(B) A certification from the owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment that CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams must continue to be managed in that CCR surface impoundment because it was infeasible to complete the measures necessary to obtain alternative disposal capacity either on-site or off-site of the facility by November 30, 2020;
(C) A certification from the owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment that the facility is in compliance with all of the requirements of this Subpart;
(D) A workplan that contains the following elements:
(
(
(
(
(
(ii) Once alternative capacity for a CCR or non-CCR wastestream is available, the existing CCR surface impoundment must cease receiving that CCR or non-CCR wastestream. The new alternate capacity must be utilized as soon as available. Once the existing CCR surface impoundment ceases receipt of all CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams, the existing CCR surface impoundment must initiate closure following the timeframes in 257.102(e) and (f).
(iii) An owner or operator may seek additional time beyond the time granted in the initial approval by making the showing in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, provided that no facility may be granted time to operate the impoundment beyond October 15, 2023. No later than October 15, 2023, all CCR surface impoundments covered by this section must cease receiving CCR and non-CCR wastestreams and close in accordance with the timeframes in § 257.102(e) and (f).
(iv) The owner or operator at all times bears responsibility for demonstrating qualification under this section. Failure to remain in compliance with any of the requirements of this subpart will result in the automatic loss of authorization under this section.
(v) An owner or operator of a CCR surface impoundment that closes in accordance with paragraph (f)(1) of this section must complete the notices and progress reports as specified in paragraphs (d) and (f)(1)(vi) through (xi) of this section.
(vi) Upon submission of the demonstration to the Administrator or the Participating State Director the owner or operator must prepare and place in the facility's operating record a notification of submitting the demonstration.
(vii) Upon approval or denial from the Administrator or the Participating State Director the owner or operator must prepare and place in the facility's operating record the notification of approval or denial and the approved or denied demonstration required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(viii) If at any time after approval, the owner or operator discovers the need to seek additional time due to infeasibility to achieve cease receipt of waste prior to the granted alternative deadline under paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section, the owner or operator must submit a notification to the Administrator or the Participating State Director as soon as possible. The owner or operator must prepare and place the notification in the facility's operating record.
(ix) The owner or operator must prepare semi-annual progress reports. The semi-annual progress reports are to contain the following:
(A) Discussion on progress obtaining alternative capacity, including:
(
(
(
(
(B) Discussion of any planned operational changes at the facility.
(x) The progress reports are to be completed according to the following schedule:
(A) The semi-annual progress reports are to be prepared and posted on April 1 and October 1 of each year for the duration of the alternate cease receipt of waste deadline.
(B) The first semi-annual progress report is to be prepared and posted by whichever date, April 1 or October 1, is soonest after receiving approval from the Administrator or the Participating State Director; and
(C) The owner or operator has completed the progress reports specified in paragraph (f)(1)(ix) of this section when the reports are placed in the facility's operating record as required by § 257.105(i)(17).
(xi) An owner or operator of a CCR surface impoundment must also prepare the notification of intent to close a CCR unit as required by § 257.102(g).
(2)
(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 257.101(a), and (b)(1), a CCR surface impoundment may continue to receive CCR and non-CCR wastestreams if the owner or operator certifies that the facility will cease operation of the coal-fired boilers and complete closure of the impoundment within the timeframes specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) of this section, but in the interim period (prior to closure of the coal-fired boiler), the facility must continue to use the CCR unit due to the absence of alternative disposal capacity both on-site and off-site of the facility. To qualify under this paragraph, the owner or operator of the CCR unit must submit a demonstration to the Administrator or Participating State Director that contains all of the following:
(A) Documentation that no alternative disposal capacity is available on-site or off-site. An increase in costs or the inconvenience of existing capacity is not sufficient to support qualification under this section.
(B) A plan to mitigate potential risks to human health and the environment from the CCR surface impoundment;
(C) Certification that the owner or operator remains in compliance with all other requirements of this subpart, including the requirement to conduct any necessary corrective action; and
(D) Documentation that the coal-fired boilers and closure of the impoundment will be completed within the timeframes specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) of this section.
(ii)
(A) For a CCR surface impoundment that is 40 acres or smaller, the coal-fired boiler must cease operation and the CCR surface impoundment must have completed closure no later than October 17, 2023.
(B) For a CCR surface impoundment that is larger than 40 acres, the coal-fired boiler must cease operation, and the CCR surface impoundment must complete closure no later than October 17, 2028.
(iii) The owner or operator at all times bears responsibility for demonstrating qualification for authorization under section. Failure to remain in compliance with any of the requirements of this subpart will result in the automatic loss of authorization under this section.
(iv) An owner or operator of a CCR surface impoundment that closes in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of this section must complete the notices and progress reports as specified in paragraphs (d) and (f)(2)(v) through (vii) of this section.
(v) Upon submission of the demonstration to the Administrator or the Participating State Director the owner or operator must prepare and place in the facility's operating record a notification of submitting the demonstration.
(vi) Upon approval or denial from the Administrator or the Participating State Director the owner or operator must prepare and place in the facility's operating record the notification of approval or denial and the approved or denied demonstration required by paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
(vii) The owner or operator must prepare an annual progress report
(3)
(i)
(A) The owner or operator must submit the demonstration required under paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, for an alternative cease receipt of waste deadline for a CCR surface impoundment pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this section, to EPA for approval no later than 2 months prior to the unit's deadline to cease receiving waste.
(B) An owner or operator may seek additional time beyond the time granted in the initial approval, as allowed under paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section, by submitting a new demonstration, as required under paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, to EPA for approval. No facility may be granted time to operate the impoundment beyond October 15, 2023.
(C) The owner or operator must submit the demonstration required under paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section, for an alternative cease receipt of waste deadline for a CCR surface impoundment under paragraph (f)(2) of this section, to EPA for approval no later than May 15, 2020.
(ii) EPA will evaluate the demonstration and may request additional information to complete its review. Submission of a complete demonstration will toll the facility's deadline to cease receipt of waste until issuance of a final decision under paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section. Incomplete submissions will not toll the facility's deadline.
(iii) EPA will publish a proposed decision on EPA's website for a 15-day comment period. If the demonstration is particularly complex, EPA will provide a comment period of 20 to 30 days.
(iv) After consideration of the comments, EPA will issue its decision on the alternate compliance deadline within 4 months of receiving a complete demonstration. If no substantive comments are received, the proposed decision will become effective 5 days from the close of the comment period.
(i) * * *
(14) The notification of intent to comply with the short-term alternative to initiation of closure as required by § 257.103(e)(4)(i).
(15) The notification of intent to comply with the site-specific alternative to initiation of closure due to development of alternate capacity infeasible as required by § 257.103(f)(1)(vi).
(16) The approved or denied demonstration for the site-specific alternative to initiation of closure due to development of alternate capacity infeasible as required by § 257.103(f)(1)(vii).
(17) The notification for requesting additional time to the alternative cease receipt of waste deadline as required by § 257.103(f)(1)(viii).
(18) The semi-annual progress reports as for the site-specific alternative to initiation of closure due to development of alternate capacity infeasible as required by § 257.103(f)(1)(ix).
(19) The notification of intent to comply with the site-specific alternative to initiation of closure due to permanent cessation of a coal-fired boiler(s) by a date certain as required by § 257.103(f)(2)(v).
(20) The approved or denied demonstration for the site-specific alternative to initiation of closure due to permanent cessation of a coal-fired boiler(s) by a date certain as required by § 257.103(f)(2)(vi).
(21) The annual progress report for the site-specific alternative to initiation of closure due to permanent cessation of a coal-fired boiler(s) by a date certain as required by § 257.103(f)(2)(vii).
(i) * * *
(14) Provide the notification of intent to comply with the short-term alternative to initiation of closure as specified under § 257.105(i)(14).
(15) Provide the notification of intent to comply with the site-specific alternative to initiation of closure due to development of alternate capacity infeasible as specified under § 257.105(i)(15).
(16) Provide the approved or denied demonstration for the site-specific alternative to initiation of closure due to development of alternate capacity infeasible as required by as specified under § 257.105(i)(16).
(17) Provide the notification for requesting additional time to the alternative cease receipt of waste deadline as required by § 257.1035(i)(17).
(18) The semi-annual progress reports as for the site-specific alternative to initiation of closure due to development of alternate capacity infeasible as specified under § 257.105(i)(18).
(19) Provide the notification of intent to comply with the site-specific alternative to initiation of closure due to permanent cessation of a coal-fired boiler(s) by a date certain as specified under § 257.105(i)(19).
(20) Provide the approved or denied demonstration for the site-specific alternative to initiation of closure due to permanent cessation of a coal-fired boiler(s) by a date certain as required by § 257.105(i)(20).
(21) The annual progress report for the site-specific alternative to initiation of closure due to permanent cessation of a coal-fired boiler(s) by a date certain as required by § 257.105(i)(21).
(i) * * *
(14) The notification of intent to comply with the short-term alternative to initiation of closure as specified under § 257.105(i)(14).
(15) The notification of intent to comply with the site-specific alternative to initiation of closure due to development of alternate capacity infeasible as specified under § 257.105(i)(15).
(16) The approved or denied demonstration for the site-specific alternative to initiation of closure due to development of alternate capacity infeasible as required by as specified under § 257.105(i)(16).
(17) The notification for requesting additional time to the alternative cease receipt of waste deadline as required by § 257.1035(i)(17).
(18) The semi-annual progress reports as for the site-specific alternative to initiation of closure due to development of alternate capacity infeasible as specified under § 257.105(i)(18).
(19) The notification of intent to comply with the site-specific alternative to initiation of closure due to permanent cessation of a coal-fired boiler(s) by a date certain as specified under § 257.105(i)(19).
(20) The approved or denied demonstration for the site-specific alternative to initiation of closure due to permanent cessation of a coal-fired boiler(s) by a date certain as required by § 257.105(i)(20).
(21) The annual progress report for the site-specific alternative to initiation of closure due to permanent cessation of a coal-fired boiler(s) by a date certain as required by § 257.105(i)(21).
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this information collection. This is a revision of a currently approved collection. This information collection consists of five components of State agency reporting and/or recordkeeping: A budget projection statement, a program activity report, State plans of operation updates, waiver requests, and other plans and submissions such as advance planning documents for information systems and for electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems.
Written comments must be received on or before January 31, 2020.
Comments may be sent to: Jane Duffield, Branch Chief, State Administration Branch, Program Accountability and Administration Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 818, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via email to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Evan Sieradzki 703-605-3212.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the USDA Forest Service and certain Department of Interior agencies are seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the extension of a currently approved information collection, Youth Conservation Corps Application and Medical History.
Comments must be received in writing on or before January 31, 2020 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Volunteers & Service Program Manager, USDA, Forest Service, Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer Resources, 201 14th Street NW, Mailstop 1125, Washington, DC 20024.
Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to 202-205-1145 or by email to:
The public may inspect comments received at USDA, Forest Service, Washington Office, Sidney R. Yates Building during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 202-205-0650 to facilitate entry to the building.
Keyana C. Ellis Reynolds, Ph.D., Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer Resources staff, at 202-205-0650,
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
1. Accomplish needed conservation work on public lands;
2. Provide gainful employment for 15 to 18 year-old males and females from all social, economic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds; and
3. Foster, on the part of the 15 through 18 year-old youth, an understanding and appreciation of the Nation's natural resources and heritage.
Youths seeking training and employment with the Youth Conservation Corps must complete the following forms: FS-1800-18 Youth Conservation Corps Application, and FS-1800-3, Youth Conservation Corps Medical History. The applicant's parent or guardian must sign both forms. The application and medical history form are evaluated by participating agencies to determine the eligibility of each youth for employment with the Youth Conservation Corps.
The purpose of this form is to certify the youth's physical fitness to work in the seasonal employment program.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that the meeting of the Wyoming Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 1:00 p.m. (MDT) Tuesday, December 17, 2019. The purpose of this meeting is for the Committee to debrief their hearing on hate crimes.
Tuesday, December 17, 2019 at 1:00 p.m. MDT.
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-367-2403, conference ID number: 9016420. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meetings at
Please click on “Committee Meetings” tab. Records generated from these meetings may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website,
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is automatically initiating the five-year reviews (Sunset Reviews) of the antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) order(s) listed below. The International Trade Commission (the Commission) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of
Applicable (December 1, 2019).
Commerce official identified in the
Commerce's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its
In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty order(s):
As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Commerces's regulations, Commerce's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on Commerce's website at the following address:
Any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
On April 10, 2013, Commerce modified two regulations related to AD/CVD proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), Commerce will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation. Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (APO) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the
Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the
If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, Commerce's regulations provide that
Commerce's information requirements are distinct from the Commission's information requirements. Consult Commerce's regulations for information regarding Commerce's conduct of Sunset Reviews. Consult Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at Commerce.
This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of opportunity.
The Department of Commerce is currently seeking applications from travel and tourism leaders from specific industries for membership on the Board of Directors (Board) of the Corporation for Travel Promotion (doing business as Brand USA). The purpose of the Board is to guide the Corporation for Travel Promotion on matters relating to the promotion of the United States as a travel destination and communication of travel facilitation issues, among other tasks. This is the third notice of an opportunity for travel and tourism industry leaders to apply for membership on the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Travel Promotion. Previous notices for this opportunity were published on Friday, July 19, 2019 and Thursday, September 12, 2019. This
All applications must be received by the National Travel and Tourism Office by close of business on Wednesday, December 11, 2019. Applicants who applied in response to the previously published
Please submit application information by email to
Julie Heizer, National Travel and Tourism Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, MS10003, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-0140; email:
The Travel Promotion Act of 2009 (TPA) was signed into law on March 4, 2010 and was amended in July 2010 and December 2014. The TPA established the Corporation for Travel Promotion (the Corporation) as a non-profit corporation charged with the development and execution of a plan to (A) provide useful information to those interested in traveling to the United States; (B) identify and address misperceptions regarding U.S. entry policies; (C) maximize economic and diplomatic benefits of travel to the United States through the use of various promotional tools; (D) ensure that international travel benefits all States and the District of Columbia; (E) identify opportunities to promote tourism to rural and urban areas equally, including areas not traditionally visited by international travelers; and (F) give priority to countries and populations most likely to travel to the United States.
The Corporation is governed by a Board of Directors, consisting of 11 members with knowledge of international travel promotion or marketing, broadly representing various regions of the United States. The TPA directs the Secretary of Commerce (after consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State) to appoint the Board of Directors for the Corporation.
At this time, the Secretary will be selecting five individuals with the appropriate expertise and experience from specific sectors of the travel and tourism industry to serve on the Board as follows:
(A) One (1) shall have appropriate expertise and experience in the
(B) One (1) shall have appropriate expertise and experience in
(C) One (1) shall have appropriate expertise and experience in the
(D) One (1) shall have appropriate expertise and experience in the
(E) One (1) shall have appropriate expertise and experience as an official of a
To be eligible for Board membership, individuals must have knowledge of international travel promotion or marketing, be a current or former chief executive officer, chief financial officer, or chief marketing officer or have held an equivalent management position. Additional consideration will be given to individuals who have experience working in U.S. multinational entities with marketing budgets, and/or who are audit committee financial experts as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission (in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 7265). Individuals must be U.S. citizens, and in addition, cannot be federally registered lobbyists or registered as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.
Those selected for the Board must be able to meet the time and effort commitments of the Board.
Board members serve at the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce (who may remove any member of the Board for good cause). The term of office for the member of the Board having appropriate expertise and experience as an official of a
Individuals who want to be considered for appointment to the Board should submit the following information by the Wednesday, December 11, 2019 deadline to the address listed in the
1. Name, title, and personal resume of the individual requesting consideration, including address, email address and phone number.
2. A brief statement of why the person should be considered for appointment to the Board. This statement should also address the individual's relevant international travel and tourism marketing experience and audit committee financial expertise, if any, and indicate clearly the sector or sectors enumerated above in which the individual has the requisite expertise and experience. Individuals who have the requisite expertise and experience in more than one sector can be appointed for only one of those sectors. Appointments of members to the Board will be made by the Secretary of Commerce.
3. An affirmative statement that the applicant is a U.S. citizen, is not a federally-registered lobbyist and further, is not required to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.
4. If applicable, a statement acknowledging that the applicant is an audit committee financial expert as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission (in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 7265).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment; request for comments.
NMFS announces the availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) on the effects of issuing an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) (No. 23148) to Exelon Generating Company, LLC, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, for the incidental take of shortnose (
Written comments must be received at the appropriate address or
The EA is available for download and review at
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2019-0076, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Celeste Stout, Phone: (301) 427-8436 or Email:
Publication of this notice begins the official public comment period for this draft EA. Per the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the purpose of the draft EA is to evaluate the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts caused by the issuance of Permit No. 23148 to Exelon Generating Company, LLC, for the incidental take of shortnose (Acipenser brevirostrum) and Atlantic (Acipenser oxyrinchus) sturgeon. All comments received will become part of the public record and will be available for review.
Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the `taking' of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The ESA defines “take” 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, under limited circumstances to take listed species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provides a mechanism for authorizing incidental take of listed species. NMFS regulations governing permits for threatened and endangered species are promulgated at 50 CFR 222.307.
Exelon Generating Company, LLC, owns Eddystone Generating Station (the facility), a natural gas/fuel oil-fired electric power generating facility that operates as a peaking plant, (
NMFS received a draft permit application from Exelon on June 28, 2018. Based on our review of the draft application, we requested further information and clarification. On December 21, 2018, Exelon submitted an application. Based on review of the updated application, NMFS and Exelon held further discussions regarding what needed to be incorporated in the Conservation Plan. On June 21, 2019, Exelon submitted a revised application and Conservation plan. This application was considered complete and on July 16, 2019, NMFS published a notice of receipt of the Exelon application for the Eddystone facility in the
Section 10 of the ESA specifies that no permit may be issued unless an applicant submits an adequate conservation plan. The conservation plan prepared by Exelon Generation Company, LLC, describes measures to monitor, minimize and mitigate the impacts of incidental takes of ESA-listed shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. To avoid and minimize take of sturgeon, Exelon will only operate Eddystone's circulating water pumps (CWPs): (1) When the station is generating electricity; and (2) for incidental maintenance or testing (generally once per month) (referred to collectively as “Essential Station Operations”); or as required by a governmental agency or other entity with jurisdiction to require operations. Depending on station generation and ambient water temperatures, Exelon will also limit operations to one CWP per unit when possible. In addition, Exelon will rely on the river water pumps (RWPs) to provide cooling water for other critical station operations outside of Essential Station Operations. These measures will avoid and minimize the incidental take of sturgeon due to entrainment or impingement by eliminating or reducing water withdrawals at times when such withdrawals are not specifically required for Essential Station Operations or for governmental agency-mandated use. Additionally, Exelon will make all reasonable efforts to schedule fuel oil deliveries outside March 15-July 15. Continued monitoring related to the take of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon will be ongoing and funding will be provided through the facility's annual operating budget.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). The draft EA was prepared in accordance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321,
In preparing the draft EA, NMFS considered the following 2 alternatives for the action.
Final permit determinations will not be completed until after the end of the 30-day comment period and will fully consider all public comments received during the comment period. NMFS will publish a record of its final action in the
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is requesting to reinstate the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the previously-approved information collection titled, “Application for the Bureau's Advisory Committees.”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before January 2, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
Comments in response to this notice are to be directed towards OMB and to the attention of the OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau. You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included.
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is requesting, to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection titled, “Generic Information Collection Plan for Surveys Using the Consumer Credit Panel.”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before January 2, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
Comments in response to this notice are to be directed towards OMB and to the attention of the OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau. You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included.
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
Wednesday, December 4, 2019; 10:00 a.m.
Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.
Decisional Matter: OFR Guidance Document Removal FR Notice.
Alberta E. Mills, Secretary, Division of the Secretariat, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7479.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council (MFRC) will take place.
Open to the public Tuesday, December 17, 2019, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Pentagon, 1155 Defense Pentagon PLC2 Pentagon Library & Conference Center, Room B6, Washington, DC 20301.
William Story, (571) 372-5345 (Voice), (571) 372-0884 (Facsimile), OSD Pentagon OUSD P-R Mailbox Family Readiness Council,
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB) will take place.
The RFPB will hold a closed meeting on Wednesday, December 11, 2019 from 9:10 a.m. to 3:25 p.m.
The RFPB meeting address is the Pentagon, Room 3E863, Arlington, VA.
Alexander Sabol, (703) 681-0577 (Voice), 703-681-0002 (Facsimile),
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Designated Federal Officer, the Reserve Forces Policy Board was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning the meeting on December 11, 2019 of the Reserve Forces Policy Board. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix), the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of a modified System of Records; correction.
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, the DoD published a notice titled “Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records” that modified a System of Records titled, “Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS), DMDC 02 DoD.” Subsequent to the publication of the notice, DoD discovered an error. This notice corrects the error.
This correction is effective on December 2, 2019.
Patricia L. Toppings, 571-372-0485.
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 (84 FR 55293-55298), the DoD published a notice titled “Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records” that modified a System of Records titled, “Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS), DMDC 02 DoD.” The error referenced in the
On page 55295, in the first column, in CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM, “
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 2, 2020.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection
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.
The regulations in § 685.222 provide a framework for the borrower defense individual and group process that applies to loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2017 and before July 1, 2020, including descriptions of the circumstances under which group borrower defense claims could be considered, and the process the Department will follow for borrower defenses for a group. The regulations establish a process for review and determination of a borrower defense for groups identified by the Secretary for which the borrower defense is made regarding a Direct Loans for attendance at a closed school that has not provided financial protection currently available to the Secretary from which to recover any losses based on borrower defense claims, and for which there is no appropriate entity from which the Secretary can otherwise practicably recover such losses. The regulations also establish the process for groups identified by the Secretary for which the borrower defense is asserted with respect to Direct Loans to attend an open school.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 31, 2020.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
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.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice and request for comments.
EIA is requesting a three-year extension without changes of the
EIA must receive all comments on this proposed information collection no later than January 31, 2020. If you anticipate any difficulties in submitting your comments by the deadline, contact the person listed in the
Send your comments to Sara Hoff electronically at
Sara Hoff, (202) 586-1242. The forms and instructions are available on EIA's website at
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Form EIA-3 collects quarterly data on the use of coal at U.S. manufacturing plants, coal transformation/processing plants, coke plants, and commercial and institutional users of coal. Form EIA-7A collects characteristics of coalbeds mined, recoverable reserves, production capacity, coal sales and revenue, stocks held at mines, and the disposition of the coal mined. For coal preparation, information collected includes operations, locations, production capacity, disposition, and volume of coal prepared. Form EIA-8A collects data on coal stocks by state location, exported coal by origin state, and export revenue of coal sold during the reporting year.
Form EIA-6
The CMRS collects coal market data and information pertaining to the quality of the coal, including heat content, ash content, sulfur content and contents of mercury and chlorides. Aggregates of this collection are used to support analysis on the effects of public policy on the coal industry, economic modeling, forecasting, coal supply and demand studies, and in guiding research and development programs. The data are included in EIA publications, such as the
EIA also uses the data in short-term and long-term forecast models such as the Short-Term Integrated Forecasting System (STIFS) and the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) Coal Market Module. The forecast data also appear in the
(5)
• Form EIA-3 has 397 respondents;
• Form EIA-7A has 692 respondents;
• Form EIA-8A has 48 respondents;
• Form EIA-6 (standby) has 15 respondents;
• Form EIA-20 (standby) has 12 respondents.
(6)
(7)
(8)
Comments are invited on whether or not: (a) The proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions, including whether the information will have a practical utility; (b) EIA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used, is accurate; (c) EIA can improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the information it will collect; and (d) EIA can minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, such as automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
15 U.S.C. 772(b) and 42 U.S.C. 7101
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Notice.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products (Renewal),” EPA ICR No. 1764.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0348, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through August 31, 2020. 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.
Comments must be submitted on or before January 31, 2020.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0563 online using
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Ms. Kaye Whitfield, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Minerals and Manufacturing Group (D243-04), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: 919-541-2509; fax number: 919-541-4991; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the membership of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Performance Review Board for 2019.
Lizabeth Engebretson, Deputy Director, Policy, Planning & Training Division, 3601M, Office of Human Resources, Office of Mission Support, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 564-0804.
Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES performance review boards. This board shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the
Members of the 2019 EPA Performance Review Board are:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of establishment of the FDIC Advisory Committee of State Regulators.
The Chairman of the FDIC is establishing the FDIC Advisory Committee of State Regulators (the ACSR). The ASCR will provide advice and recommendations to the FDIC on a broad range of policy issues regarding the regulation of state-chartered financial institutions throughout the United States, including its territories. The ACSR will provide a forum where state regulators and the FDIC can discuss a variety of current and emerging issues that have potential implications regarding the regulation and supervision of state-chartered financial institutions. The ACSR is intended to facilitate regular discussion of: Safety and soundness and consumer protection issues; the creation of new banks; the protection of our nation's financial system from risks such as cyber-attacks or money laundering; and other timely issues. The ACSR will serve solely in an advisory capacity and will have no final decision-making authority, nor will it have access to or discuss any non-public, confidential or institution-specific information. The Chairman certifies that the establishment of the ACSR is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FDIC by law. ACSR members will not receive any compensation for their services other than reimbursement for reasonable travel expenses incurred to attend ACSR meetings.
Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, FDIC, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429; telephone (202) 898-7043.
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, notice is hereby given that the Chairman of the FDIC intends to establish the FDIC ACSR. After consultation with the General Services Administration as required by section 9(a)(2) of FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.65, the Chairman of the FDIC certifies that she has determined that the establishment of the ACSR is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FDIC by law. The ACSR will function solely as an advisory body, and in compliance with the provisions of FACA. To ensure relevant expertise on the ACSR, members of the ACSR should include regulators of state-chartered financial institutions from across the United States, including its territories, or other individuals with expertise in the regulation of state-chartered financial institutions.
Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.
Notice of special meeting.
In accordance with Section 1104 (b) of Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended, notice is hereby given that the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) will meet in open session for a Special Meeting:
If you would like to listen to this Meeting, we ask that you send an email to
Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.
Notice of termination of residential temporary waiver relief.
The Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) is providing notice of termination of temporary waiver relief of appraiser credentialing requirements for appraisals of federally related transactions (FRTs) under $500,000 for 1-to-4 family residential real estate transactions throughout the State of North Dakota which was granted by Order for a period of one year pursuant to section 1119(b) of Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended (Title XI) and the rules promulgated thereunder. The Order provided that the temporary waiver for residential real estate transactions would terminate 60 days after the effective date of a final rule issued by the federal banking agencies increasing the appraisal exemption threshold limit for residential real estate transactions. The federal banking agencies issued a final rule that increased the appraisal exemption threshold for residential real estate transactions with an effective date of October 9, 2019. The Order specified that the temporary waiver for residential real estate transactions will terminate 60 days after the effective date of that rule, which will occur on December 8, 2019.
James R. Park, Executive Director, at (202) 595-7575, or Alice M. Ritter, General Counsel, at (202) 595-7577, ASC, 1325 G Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005.
Section 1119(b) of Title XI authorizes the ASC to waive, on a temporary basis and with concurrence of the FFIEC, “any requirement relating to certification or licensing of a person to perform appraisals under [Title XI]” upon “a written determination that there is a scarcity of certified or licensed appraisers to perform appraisals in connection with [FRTs]
On August 1, 2018, the Governor of North Dakota, the North Dakota Department of Financial Institutions, and the North Dakota Bankers Association (Requester) submitted a temporary waiver request to the ASC. The Requester sought a temporary waiver of not less than five years of appraiser credentialing requirements for appraisals of FRTs under $500,000 for 1-to-4 family residential real estate transactions and under $1,000,000 for agricultural and commercial real estate transactions throughout the State of North Dakota.
On July 9, 2019, the ASC convened a Special Meeting to consider the request. Based on the information provided by the Requester, the North Dakota Real Estate Appraiser Qualifications and Ethics Board (Appraiser Board), and by the public through comment letter submissions, the ASC issued an Order approving a limited version of the waiver request.
The Order, which was published in the
• A temporary waiver of appraiser credentialing requirements for appraisals of FRTs under $500,000 for 1-to-4 family residential real estate transactions throughout the State of North Dakota for a period of one year, unless the federal banking agencies issue a rule increasing appraisal exemption threshold limits for residential real estate transactions, in which case the residential waiver will terminate 60 days after the effective date of that threshold increase.
The federal banking agencies issued a final rule increasing the appraisal exemption threshold limits for residential real estate transactions with an effective date of October 9, 2019.
By the Appraisal Subcommittee.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a revision and renewal of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding commercial item acquisitions.
Submit comments on or before January 2, 2020.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503 or at
•
•
Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, at telephone 202-208-4949, or email at
9000-0136, Commercial Item Acquisitions.
The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 reformed Federal acquisition statutes to encourage and facilitate the acquisition of commercial items and services by the Federal Government. Accordingly, DoD, NASA, and GSA amended the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to include streamlined/simplified procedures for the acquisition of commercial items. Pertinent to this information collection, FAR Provision 52.212-3, “Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Items,” was implemented to combine the multitude of individual provisions used in Government solicitations into a single provision for use in commercial acquisitions. The provision is among the representations and certifications that are available for completion in the System for Award Management (SAM).
A 60-day notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has delegated to the Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, CDC, without the authority to redelegate, the authorities under the Firefighter Cancer Registry Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-194).
This delegation became effective on November 25, 2019. In addition, the Director, CDC, hereby adopts any actions taken that involve the exercise of the authorities delegated herein prior to the effective date of the delegation.
Children's Bureau; Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is requesting a three-year extension of the previously approved forms that include satisfaction surveys; surveys to assess jurisdiction's foundational capacity; a workshop follow-up survey; webinar and online learning registration forms; and service-specific feedback forms and interview protocol (OMB Number: 0970-0494, expiration March 31, 2020). This request includes one new innovation survey, and requests minor changes to the webinar and online learning registration forms. Three instruments from the original approval are not included with this request. This requested extension relates to a second set of instruments, which are part of a larger data collection effort being conducted for the evaluation of the Child Welfare Capacity Building Collaborative. An extension request for the first group of evaluation instruments
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following:
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by emailing
The Cross-Center Evaluation uses a longitudinal, mixed methods approach to evaluate Center services as they develop and mature over the study period. Multiple data collection strategies are used to efficiently capture quantitative and qualitative data to enable analyses that address each evaluation question. Cross-Center Evaluation data sources for this effort for which an extension is being sought include: (1) A foundational assessment to capture contextual data regarding the organizational health and functioning of child welfare agencies and courts; (2) a workshop follow-up survey that examines short-term and intermediate outcomes among CIPs that receive different levels of tailored services following continuous quality improvement (CQI) workshops, and (3) a tailored services satisfaction survey. Center-specific data sources for this effort include: (1) Registration forms for webinar registration and CapLearn, a learning management system; and (2) service-specific feedback forms and interviews, such as the Center for States Tailored Services interview protocol, the Center for States Innovation survey, and the Center for Courts Universal and Constituency Services survey.
42 U.S.C. 5106.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials of Drugs and Biologics.” This guidance provides guidance to sponsors and applicants submitting investigational new drug applications (INDs), new drug applications (NDAs), biologics license applications (BLAs), or supplemental applications on the appropriate use of adaptive designs for clinical trials to provide evidence of the effectiveness and safety of a drug or biological product. The guidance describes important principles for designing, conducting, and reporting the results from an adaptive clinical trial. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance entitled “Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials of Drugs and Biologics” issued in October 2018.
FDA is also 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.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 2, 2020. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, 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 that office in processing your requests. See the
FDA is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials of Drugs and Biologics.” The guidance provides recommendations to sponsors and applicants submitting INDs, NDAs, BLAs, or supplemental applications on the appropriate use of adaptive designs for clinical trials to provide evidence of the effectiveness and safety of a drug or biologic. Agency regulations in 21 CFR parts 312, 314, and 601 govern the format and content of information that must be included in IND, NDA, and BLA submissions, respectively, and set forth general requirements regarding supporting documentation and recordkeeping associated with the various applicable provisions.
Recommendations found in the guidance describe principles we consider important for designing, conducting, and reporting the results from an adaptive clinical trial. The guidance also discusses the types of information FDA will evaluate from clinical trials with adaptive designs, including Bayesian adaptive and complex trials that rely on computer simulations for their design. The primary focus of this guidance is on adaptive designs for clinical trials intended to support the effectiveness and safety of drugs and biological products.
This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same title issued on October 1, 2018 (83 FR 49400). FDA considered comments received on the draft guidance as the guidance was finalized. Changes from the draft to the final guidance include: (1) Reworking the subsection on Bayesian adaptive designs to clarify the Agency's recommendations and (2) clarifying the extent of prespecification required for the rules governing adaptations. In addition, editorial changes were made to improve clarity.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials of Drugs and Biologics.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
In accordance with 21 CFR 312.145, we are making this guidance available under our good guidance practices regulations in 21 CFR 10.115 to help respondents comply with regulatory requirements associated with submitting INDs, NDAs (currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0001), and BLAs (currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0338). In section VIII.B., the guidance states that the documented plan for a clinical trial with a proposed adaptive design should include certain information. The information could be included in the clinical trial protocol and/or in separate documents, such as: (1) A statistical analysis plan, (2) a data monitoring committee (DMC) charter, or (3) an adaptation committee charter. Although different types of information might be included in different documents, all important information described below should be submitted to FDA during the design stage so that FDA has sufficient time to provide feedback prior to initiation of the clinical trial:
• A rationale for the selected design;
• A detailed description of the monitoring and adaptation plan, including the anticipated number and timing of interim analyses, the specific aspects of the design that may be modified, and the rule that will be used to make adaptation decisions;
• Information on the roles of the bodies responsible for implementing the adaptive design, such as the DMC and/or the dedicated adaptation committee, if applicable;
• Prespecification of the statistical methods that will be used to produce interim results, guide adaptation decisions, carry out hypothesis tests, estimate treatment effects, and estimate uncertainty in treatment effect estimates at the end of the trial;
• Evaluation and discussion of the design operating characteristics; and
• In cases where simulations are the primary or sole technique for evaluating trial operating characteristics, a detailed simulation report should be submitted, including:
○ An overall description of the trial design;
○ Example trials, in which a small number of hypothetical trials are described with different conclusions, such as a positive trial with the original sample size, a trial stopped for futility after the first interim look, a positive trial after increasing the sample size, etc.;
○ A description of the set of parameter configurations used for the simulation scenarios, including a justification of the adequacy of the choices;
o The number of simulated trials (iterations) evaluated for each scenario and a rationale for the adequacy of this number;
○ Simulation results detailing the estimated operating characteristics under the various scenarios;
○ Simulation code that is readable and adequately commented and should include the random seeds used to generate the simulation results; and
○ A summary providing overall conclusions.
• A comprehensive written data access plan defining how trial integrity will be maintained in the presence of the planned adaptations. This documentation should include information regarding: (1) The personnel who will perform the interim analyses, (2) the personnel who will have access to interim results, (3) how that access will be controlled, (4) how adaptive decisions will be made, and (5) what type of information will be disseminated following adaptive decisions, and to whom it will be disseminated. The data access plan should describe what information (and under what circumstances) is permitted to be passed to the sponsor or investigators. In addition, it is recommended that sponsors establish procedures to evaluate compliance with the data access plan and to document all interim meetings of the committee tasked with making adaptation decisions (
In section VIII.C., the guidance states that a marketing application to FDA that relies on a trial with an adaptive design should include sufficient information and documentation to allow FDA to thoroughly review the results, including:
• All prospective plans, any relevant committee charters (
• Information on compliance with the planned adaptation rule and with the procedures outlined in the data access plan to maintain trial integrity;
• Records of deliberations and participants for any interim discussions by any committees involved in the adaptive process;
• Results of the interim analyses or analyses used for the adaptation decisions; and
• Appropriate reporting of the adaptive design and trial results in section 14 of the proposed package insert. For example, the trial summary should describe the adaptive design utilized. In addition, treatment effect estimates should adequately take the design into account, or if naïve estimates such as unadjusted sample means are used, the extent of bias should be evaluated, and estimates should be presented with appropriate cautions regarding their interpretation.
Discussion of the plans for an adaptive trial can be the basis for requesting a Type C meeting. Regulatory mechanisms for obtaining formal, substantive feedback from FDA on clinical trials may also include end-of-phase-2 meetings. The guidance also recommends that special protocol assessments (given the 45-day response timeline) be submitted for trials with complex adaptive designs only if there has been extensive previous discussion between FDA and the sponsor regarding the proposed trial and design. The guidance explains that in their submissions, sponsors should prespecify the details of the adaptive design and provide justification that the chances of erroneous conclusions will be adequately controlled, estimation of treatment effects will be sufficiently reliable, and trial integrity will be appropriately maintained. The guidance notes that the sponsor should advise FDA during the course of a trial of any proposed changes to the trial design (usually through protocol amendments) and that FDA may request that the sponsor submit minutes from open sessions of a monitoring committee during an ongoing trial.
As noted above, in the
There were 21 distinct commenters during this time frame, including from industry, drug associations, individuals, and academia, with multiple comments from each distinct commenter.
The majority of comments on the guidance related to format, clarity, or word choice, providing specific technical recommendations on statistical methodologies. Because we do not believe these considerations have any effect on the information collection burden, we have made no changes to our estimate.
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on our review of INDs, NDAs, BLAs, and supplemental applications for the use of adaptive designs for clinical trials to provide evidence of effectiveness and safety, we estimate that approximately 40 sponsors or applicants will prepare approximately 240 documented plans for clinical trials containing a proposed adaptive design and analysis plan and will submit this information to FDA in a clinical trial protocol and/or in separate documents such as a statistical analysis plan, a data monitoring committee charter, or an adaptation committee charter. In addition, we estimate that preparing and submitting this information will take approximately 50 hours per sponsor or applicant.
Furthermore, we estimate that approximately 15 sponsors or applicants will prepare and submit to FDA approximately 20 marketing applications that rely on a trial with an adaptive design and that preparing and submitting this information will take approximately 50 hours per sponsor or applicant.
FDA is issuing this final guidance subject to OMB approval of the collections of information. Before implementing the information collection provisions of the guidance, FDA will publish a notice in the
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is withdrawing approval of 21 abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) from multiple applicants. The applicants notified the Agency in writing that the drug products were no longer marketed and requested that the approval of the applications be withdrawn.
Approval is withdrawn as of January 2, 2020.
Martha Nguyen, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1676, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-6980,
Therefore, approval of the applications listed in the table, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn as of January 2, 2020. Approval of each entire application is withdrawn, including any strengths or products inadvertently missing from the table. Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of products without approved new drug applications violates section 301(a) and (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)). Drug products that are listed in the table that are in inventory on January 2, 2020 may continue to be dispensed until the inventories have been depleted or the drug products have reached their expiration dates or otherwise become violative, whichever occurs first.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by January 31, 2020.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 31, 2020. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Section 515A(a) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360e-1) (FD&C Act) requires applicants who submit certain medical device applications to include readily available information providing a description of any pediatric subpopulations that suffer from the disease or condition that the device is intended to treat, diagnose, or cure, and the number of affected pediatric patients. The information submitted will allow FDA to track the number of approved devices for which there is a pediatric subpopulation that suffers from the disease or condition that the device is intended to treat, diagnose, or cure and the review time for each such device application.
These requirements apply to applicants who submit humanitarian device exemption requests (HDEs), premarket approval applications (PMAs) or PMA amendments or supplements, or a product development protocol (PDP).
FDA expects to receive approximately 47 original PMA/PDP/HDE applications each year, 1 of which FDA expects to be HDEs. This estimate is based on the average of FDA's receipt of new PMA applications. The Agency estimates that 11 of the estimated 47 original PMA submissions will fail to provide the required pediatric use information and their sponsors will therefore be required to submit PMA amendments. The Agency also expects to receive approximately 928 supplements that will include the pediatric use information required by section 515A(a) of the FD&C Act and part 814 (21 CFR part 814).
All that is required is to gather, organize, and submit information that is readily available, using any approach that meets the requirements of section 515A(a) of the FD&C Act and part 814. We believe that because the applicant is required to organize and submit only readily available information, no more than 8 hours will be required to comply. Furthermore, because supplements may include readily available information on pediatric populations by referencing a previous submission, FDA estimates the average time to obtain and submit the required information is a supplement to be 2 hours. FDA estimates that the total estimated burden is 2,392 hours.
Additionally, the guidance document entitled “Providing Information About Pediatric Uses of Medical Devices—Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff” describes how to compile and submit the readily available pediatric use information required under section 515A(a) of the FD&C Act. Respondents are permitted to submit information relating to uses of the device outside the approved or proposed indication if such uses are described or acknowledged in acceptable sources of readily available information. We estimate that 20 percent of respondents submitting information required by section 515A(a) of the FD&C Act will choose to submit this information and that it will take 30 minutes for them to do so.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Our estimated burden and corresponding responses reflect the requirements under section 515A(a) of the FD&C Act, in addition to the submission of data related to pediatric uses outside an approved indication, as described in the guidance document entitled “Providing Information About Pediatric Uses of Medical Devices—Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff.” OMB previously approved the information collection related to uses outside an approved indication under OMB control number 0910-0762. As the information collection uses the same data and relies upon the same legal authority as OMB control number 0910-0748, we have discontinued OMB control number 0910-0762 and merged the information collection accordingly. Additionally, we have altered the title of the collection to reflect all collections of pediatric uses.
Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall increase of 632 hours and a corresponding increase of supplements and of uses outside of approved indications. We attribute this adjustment to an increase in the number of supplements we received over the last 5 years and merging data from discontinued OMB control number 0910-0762.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than January 2, 2020.
Submit your comments, including the ICR Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Lisa Wright-Solomon, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
A 60-day notice was published in the
HRSA updated this Notice to reflect the following changes since the publication of the 60-day Notice. The number of estimated respondents changed from 9,058 to 9,000. This change came about because of the separation of the cognitive testing package from the national survey package. Based on completing the cognitive testing, the estimated overall burden on survey respondents dropped from 1.25 hours to 1.00 hour. HRSA discontinued use of the term “Grantee” when referring to recipients of HRSA funding; therefore, in its place in the burden table below, the term “Grantee Recruitment” has been changed to “Awardee Recruitment.” HRSA added a Short Blessed Scale to account for the patient's time if they are screened for impairment before or during the survey administration. HRSA utilized The Short Blessed Scale for 0.2 percent of respondents in the 2014 HCPS.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) will publish periodic summaries of propose projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Zhining Wang, Ph.D., Project Officer, Center for Cancer Genomics (CCG), National Cancer Institute, Building 31 Room 3A20, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20814 or call non-toll-free number 301-402-1892 or Email your request, including your address to:
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 50 hours.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Request for Information.
The Expert Panel Working Group of the NHLBI National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee (NAEPPCC) is soliciting comments and suggestions from the public on “Update on Selected Topics in Asthma Management 2020: A Report from the Expert Panel Report-4 (EPR-4) Working Group.” This Request for Information (RFI) invites the scientific community, health professionals, organizations, patient communities, and the general public to provide comments and suggestions, including particular emphasis on the feasibility, acceptability, and capacity for implementation, of the proposed recommendations and implementation guidance. Responses to this RFI will be used to update and revise the report as necessary.
The NHLBI NAEPPCC RFI is open for public comment for a period of 35 days. Comments must be received by January 6, 2020 to ensure consideration. After the public comment period has closed, the comments received will be considered in a timely manner by the NHLBI NAEPPCC Expert Panel Working Group.
Submissions may be submitted electronically to [
Questions about this request for information should be directed to Susan T. Shero, RN, MS, Executive Secretary, NAEPPCC, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Blvd., Rm. 9182, Bethesda, MD 20892,
In August 2015, the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee (NAEPPCC) was chartered as a federal advisory committee in accordance with 424B of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 285b-7b, as amended. The committee is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 U.S.C App.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. The NAEPPCC fulfills the charges of 424B of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 285b-7b, as amended:
• Identify all Federal programs that carry out asthma-related activities.
• Develop, in consultation with appropriate federal agencies and professional and voluntary health organizations, a Federal plan for responding to asthma.
The NAEPPCC also fulfills charges, similar to those above, set forth in the Children's Health Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-310). In addition, the Children's Health Act of 2000 tasks the NHLBI, through the NAEPPCC, with submitting recommendations to Congress on ways to strengthen and improve coordination of asthma-related activities of the federal government.
The NAEPPCC consists of representatives from the major scientific, professional, governmental, and voluntary organizations interested in asthma. The Committee's primary mission is to advise the NHLBI on matters concerning asthma and to facilitate the exchange of information on asthma activities among the member agencies and voluntary health organizations.
The NHLBI administers and coordinates the Coordinating Committee. The Coordinating Committee meetings are open to the public and include presentations and discussion on a variety of topics concerning asthma, including activities and projects of the Committee.
NHLBI produced its first asthma clinical practice guidelines in 1991 and an update was issued in 2007, Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma (EPR-3). In 2011, the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program concluded another update was needed and an Advisory Council of the NHLBI determined in 2012 that a needs assessment should be conducted prior to engaging in any guideline activity. In 2014, NHLBI Council convened an Asthma Expert Panel Working Group to conduct a needs assessment. The Working Group recommended that an update should be made to the 2007 clinical practice guidelines; identified five priority topics for immediate systematic review and update (subsequently changed to six priority topics); and recommended that the NHLBI maintain the NAEPP structure, coordinate the systematic reviews, and update the report. After public comments on the draft needs assessment report were received and reviewed, the Working Group recommended adding a sixth priority topic to the report.
The six priority topic areas identified by the Working Group are: (1) Adjustable medication dosing in recurrent wheezing and asthma (“intermittent therapy”), (2) long acting anti-muscarinic agents in asthma management as add-on to inhaled corticosteroids, (3) bronchial thermoplasty in adult severe asthma, (4) fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) in diagnosis, medication selection, and monitoring treatment response, (5) remediation of indoor allergens (house dust mites/pets), and (6) the role of immunotherapy in the treatment of asthma.
The Working Group also recommended that several emerging topic areas be acknowledged and monitored, but did not yet merit systematic review.
The NAEPPCC Expert Panel Working Group 4 (EPR-4) was established in 2018 to update selected topics in the 2007 Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma, Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR-3). The Expert Panel Working Group members used findings from the following NHLBI-supported systematic reviews to develop updates to the 2007 guidelines.
• Role of Immunotherapy in the Treatment of Asthma
• Intermittent Inhaled Corticosteroids and Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist for Asthma
• Effectiveness of Indoor Allergen Reduction in Management of Asthma
• Effectiveness and Safety of Bronchial Thermoplasty in Management of Asthma
• The Clinical Utility of Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO) in Asthma Management
The Expert Panel Working Group members include asthma content experts, specialists and primary care clinicians, health policy experts, implementation and dissemination experts and individuals with experience using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. A methodologist provided technical support to the Working Group.
This RFI should not be construed as a solicitation for applications or proposals, or as an obligation in any way on the part of the United States Federal government. The Federal government will not pay for the preparation of any information submitted or for the government's use. Additionally, the government cannot guarantee the confidentiality of the information provided.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of South Dakota (FEMA-4463-DR), dated September 23, 2019, and related determinations.
The amendment was issued November 20, 2019.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this declared disaster is now May 21, 2019, through and including June 7, 2019.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for State of Alaska (FEMA-4413-DR), dated January 31, 2019, and related determinations.
This change occurred on November 6, 2019.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Robert Forgit, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
This action terminates the appointment of Timothy B. Manner as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for State of Oregon (FEMA-4452-DR), dated July 9, 2019, and related determinations.
This change occurred on November 8, 2019.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Dolph A. Diemont of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
This action terminates the appointment of Rosalyn L. Cole as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for State of Oregon (FEMA-4432-DR), dated May 2, 2019, and related determinations.
This change occurred on November 8, 2019.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Dolph A. Diemont of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
This action terminates the appointment of Rosalyn L. Cole as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for State of Illinois (FEMA-4461-DR), dated September 19, 2019, and related determinations.
This change occurred on November 7, 2019.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Steven W. Johnson, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
This action terminates the appointment of Nancy Casper as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Office of Partnership and Engagement (OPE), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of open teleconference federal advisory committee meeting.
The Homeland Security Advisory Council (“HSAC” or “Council”) will meet via teleconference on Tuesday, December 17, 2019 to review, deliberate, and vote on the final draft report of the Prevention of Targeted Violence Against Faith-Based Communities Subcommittee. The meeting will be open to the public.
The Council conference call will take place from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. EST on Tuesday, December 17, 2019. Please note that the meeting may end early if the Council has completed its business.
The HSAC meeting will be held via teleconference. Members of the public interested in participating may do so by following the process outlined below (see “Public Participation”). Written comments can be submitted from December 2, 2019 to January 17, 2020. Comments must be identified by Docket No. DHS-2019-0063 and may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mike Miron at
Notice of this meeting is given under Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463 (5 U.S.C. Appendix), which requires each FACA committee meeting to be open to the public.
The Council provides organizationally independent, strategic, timely, specific, actionable advice, and recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters related to homeland security. The Council is comprised of leaders of local law enforcement, first responders, Federal, State, and Local governments, the private sector, and academia.
The agenda for the meeting is as follows: The Council will review, deliberate, and vote on the Prevention of Targeted Violence Against Faith-Based Communities Final Draft Report. Following the review, there will be a break for public commentary.
For information on services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance, contact Mike Miron at
Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance during the teleconference contact Mike Miron at (202) 447-3135.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, 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 30 additional 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
Terri Ames, Housing Program Specialist, Office of Policy and Grants Administration: Office of Housing Counseling, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
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,
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 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
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
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,
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 Chief Information Officer, 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 30 additional 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
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
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,
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.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 31, 2020.
Send your comments on the information collection request by mail to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/PERMA (JAO/1N), 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
On behalf of the Secretary, we implemented regulations at 50 CFR 18.23(f) for Alaska Natives harvesting polar bears, northern sea otters, and Pacific walruses. These regulations enable us to gather data on the Alaska Native subsistence and handicraft harvest and on the biology of polar bears, northern sea otters, and Pacific walruses in Alaska to determine what effect such take may be having on these populations. The regulations also provide us with a means of monitoring the disposition of the harvest to ensure that any commercial use of products created from these species meets the criteria set forth in section 101(b) of the MMPA. We use three forms to collect the information: FWS Form 3-2414 (Polar Bear Tagging Certificates), FWS Form 3-2415 (Walrus Tagging Certificates), and FWS Form 3-2416 (Sea Otter Tagging Certificates). The information we collect includes, but is not limited to:
• Date of kill;
• Sex of the animal;
• Kill location;
• Age of the animal (
• Form of transportation used to make the kill of polar bears;
• Amount of time (
• Type of take (live-killed or beach-found) for walrus;
• Number of otters present in and number of otters harvested from pod;
• Condition of the polar bear and whether or not bear cubs were present; and
• Name of the hunter or possessor of the specified parts at the time of marking, tagging, and reporting.
We use FWS Form 3-2406 (Registration of Certain Dead Marine Mammal Hard Parts) to record the collection of bones, teeth, or ivory of dead marine mammals by non-Native and Natives not eligible to harvest marine mammals under the MMPA. It is legal to collect such parts from a beach or from land within a quarter of a mile of the ocean (50 CFR 18.26). The information we collect via Form 3-2406 includes, but is not limited to:
• Date and location found.
• Age, sex, and size of the animal.
• Tag numbers.
• Name, address, phone number, and birthdate of the collector.
As part of this renewal process, the Service plans to carefully review each form to determine whether any updates need to be made to the forms. If updates are made, we will clearly annotate those updates in the required submission to OMB.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Buffalo Field Office prepared a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment for the 2015 Buffalo Field Office RMP. This effort was in response to a United States District Court of Montana opinion and order (
Copies of the ROD are available at the Buffalo Field Office at 1425 Fort Street, Buffalo, WY 82834, and online at
Contact Thomas (Tom) Bills, RMP Supplemental EIS Project Manager; telephone: 307-684-1133; email:
The 2015 Buffalo Field Office Approved RMP provided a single, comprehensive land use plan to guide management of BLM-administered lands and minerals in the Buffalo Field Office, which includes approximately 800,000 acres of BLM surface land and 4.7 million acres of BLM mineral estate in Campbell, Johnson and Sheridan counties in north-central Wyoming.
Based on the above-referenced court decision, feedback from cooperating agencies and stakeholders, and public scoping, the BLM developed the supplemental EIS and analyzed a No Action Alternative and an Action Alternative. The alternatives focused on the allocation of lands open for leasing federal coal, in response to the court order.
The No Action Alternative represented the decision area from the 2015 RMP and brought forward all management decisions that precluded coal development in the 2015 RMP. It relied on decisions from the 2001 coal screening process that informed the 2015 RMP, but used an updated 2018 coal production baseline. The BLM also used the 2019 U.S. Energy Information Administration development forecast to project development in the Buffalo Field Office over the 20-year planning period. The No Action Alternative analyzed 686,896 acres for consideration of coal leasing, which included approximately 73.66 billion tons of BLM-administered coal reserves.
The Action Alternative also used the 2018 coal production baseline and the 2019 U.S. Energy Information Administration development forecast. In addition, the Action Alternative applied new coal screens (as described in 43 CFR 3420.1-4(e)), considered new scientific and geospatial data, and evaluated issues identified through internal and public scoping. Based on these factors, the Action Alternative area analyzed 455,467 acres for consideration of coal leasing, which included approximately 52.24 billion tons of BLM-administered coal reserves.
The Final Supplemental EIS was published on October 4, 2019 (84 FR 53170). During the 30-day protest period, the BLM Director received four protest letters. All protests were resolved prior to the issuance of the ROD. Simultaneously with the protest period, the Governor of Wyoming conducted a 60-day consistency review of the Final Supplemental EIS and Proposed Plan Amendment and found no inconsistencies.
The approved RMP amendment is a modification of the Supplemental EIS's Action Alternative that makes 495,251 acres of federal coal available for consideration for leasing. This area includes all the acreage identified as available under the Action Alternative, as well as 40,847 additional acres that were included under the No Action Alternative. The BLM made this decision as a result of public, stakeholder, and cooperating agency input on the Supplemental EIS as well as updated best available information and special expertise provided by cooperating agencies and the public.
The ROD summarizes the decisions, clarifications, and modifications included in the Approved RMP Amendment.
43 CFR 1610.2(c), 40 CFR 1506.6.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public Land Order.
This Public Land Order (PLO) extends the duration of the withdrawal created by PLO No. 7420 for an additional 20-year term. PLO No. 7420 would otherwise expire on December 3, 2019. This extension is necessary to continue to protect the value of the capital investments, water-oriented developments, and dispersed recreation in the Bureau of Reclamation's (BOR) Lake Roosevelt expansion area. PLO No. 7420 withdrew 9,175 acres of National Forest System lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, for a 20-year period. The lands have been and will remain open to mineral and geothermal leasing.
This PLO takes effect on December 4, 2019.
Sara Ferreira, Land Law Examiner, at 602-417-9598 or by email at
This Order extends the existing withdrawal to continue to protect the capital investments, water-oriented developments, and dispersed recreation resources in the Lake Roosevelt Expansion area.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:
1. Subject to valid existing rights, PLO No 7420, (64 FR 67929, (1999)), which withdrew National Forest System lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, is hereby extended for an additional 20-year period to protect the Bureau of Reclamation's Lake Roosevelt expansion area.
2. The withdrawal extended by this Order will expire on December 3, 2039, unless as a result of review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines the withdrawal shall be further extended.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Montana Miles City Field Office has prepared a Record of Decision and Amendment to the 2015 Miles City Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP). This effort is in response to a United States District Court for the District of Montana opinion and order (
Copies of the Record of Decision and Approved RMP Amendment are available at the Miles City Field Office at the Miles City Field Office, 111 Garryowen Road, Miles City, MT 59301, or may be viewed online at:
Irma Nansel, RMP Supplemental EIS Project Manager, Miles City Field Office, at telephone: (406) 233-3653, or at the above Miles City mailing address or website. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact Ms. Nansel during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The 2015 Miles City Approved RMP provides a single, comprehensive land use plan that guides management of BLM-administered lands and minerals in the Miles City Field Office, which consists of approximately 2.7 million acres of BLM surface land and 11.9 million acres of BLM mineral estate (11.7 million acres of subsurface Federal mineral coal estate) across 17 counties in eastern Montana.
The RMP Amendment approved by the Record of Decision includes land use allocations of areas acceptable for further consideration of leasing for coal and those that are not. The Approved RMP Amendment is Alternative B from the Supplemental EIS, which allocates 1,214,380 acres as areas acceptable for further consideration of leasing for coal and 530,420 acres that are not acceptable.
The Notice of Availability for the Proposed Amendment to the Approved RMP for the Miles City Field Office was published in the
43 CFR 1610.5.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the National Park Service (NPS) are proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 31, 2020.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to Phadrea Ponds, NPS Information Collection Clearance Officer, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525; or by email at
To request additional information about this ICR by mail, contact Katrina Gonzalez, Digital Media Specialist, 67 Mather Place PO Box 50, Harpers Ferry, WV 25425-0050, or by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the NPS; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the NPS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the NPS minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Each year, staff managing these collections receive hundreds of requests for copies of materials. These requests are typically for hard copy and/or digital scans of documents, prints, slides, negatives, audiovisual materials, and works of art. The forms in this collection of information is necessary to appropriately respond to the large number of requests received. Without the information, timely and effective communication with the requestor is not possible.
The information collected will be used to determine what is requested, how it will be used, and the timeframe in which it is needed. This aids in determining legal restrictions, standards being requested (scan resolution), and our ability to meet those needs. Understanding the intended use of the materials is important as many materials in the collections have copyright, contractual, or other legal restrictions that prohibit anything except “fair use” under U.S. copyright laws.
This request is to approve two forms currently in use without a valid OMB control number. The “User Agreement Document” and “Art Request Form” facilitate requests for copies of materials managed by HFC. We are now requesting approval to use these forms on our Harpers Ferry website as fillable forms.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of intent; request for comments.
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Friant-Kern Canal Middle Reach Capacity Correction Project. Reclamation is requesting public and agency comment to identify significant issues or other alternatives to be addressed in the EIS.
Submit written comments on the scope of the EIS on or before January 2, 2020.
A scoping meeting will be held on December 18, 2019, 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Porterville CA at the U.S. Forest Service Sequoia National Forest Headquarters, 1839 S. Newcomb Street, Porterville CA 93257.
Provide written scoping comments, requests to be added to the mailing list, or requests for sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired or other special assistance needs to Ms. Rain Emerson, Environmental Compliance Branch Chief, Bureau of Reclamation, South-Central California Area Office, 1243 N Street, Fresno CA 93721;
Ms. Rain Emerson, Bureau of Reclamation, South-Central California Area Office, 1243 N Street, Fresno CA 93721; telephone (559) 262-0335; facsimile (559) 262-0371; email
Reclamation is issuing this notice pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA),
A 33-mile-long section (milepost 88 to milepost 121) of the Friant-Kern Canal located within Tulare and Kern Counties referred to as the Middle Reach has lost 50 percent of its original design capacity due to regional land subsidence. This has resulted in water delivery impacts to Friant Division long-term contractors and reduces the ability of the Friant-Kern Canal to convey flood waters during wet years.
Reclamation, in partnership with the Friant Water Authority (FWA), proposes to restore the capacity of this 33-mile-long section. The proposed action includes two alternatives to address subsidence impacts: (1) A Canal Enlargement (CE) Alternative, and (2) a Canal Enlargement and Realignment (CER) Alternative. Under the CE Alternative, the entire 33-mile long section of the Middle Reach would be enlarged by widening and raising the canal banks. Under the CER Alternative, approximately 10 miles of the existing canal would be widened and raised and approximately 23 miles of the canal corridor would be realigned to newly constructed canal segments. Reclamation is proposing to provide cost-share funding for the project pursuant to the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Pub. L. 111-11 § 10201) and the Water Infrastructure Improvement for the Nation Act (Pub. L. 114-322 § 4007).
Reclamation is not presently aware of Indian Trust Assets or environmental justice issues associated with the proposed action but requests any information relative to this issue be submitted during the scoping period.
Reclamation intends to complete an EIS for this project pursuant to NEPA to ensure consideration of potential environmental effects from implementing the proposed action. As such, Reclamation will also consider a reasonable range of alternatives that could meet the purpose for the project. Reclamation and FWA are requesting public and agency input to assist in identifying significant issues or alternatives to be addressed in the EIS.
To determine the scope of issues relevant to environmental concerns, Reclamation and the FWA prepared an environmental assessment and initial study, which is available at
If special assistance is required to participate in the public scoping meeting, please contact Ms. Rain Emerson, Bureau of Reclamation, South-Central California Area Office, 1243 N Street, Fresno CA 93721; telephone (559) 262-0335; facsimile (559) 262-0371; email
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on calcium hypochlorite from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Instituted December 2, 2019. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is January 2, 2020. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by February 13, 2020.
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) The
(6) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Office of the General Counsel, at 202-205-3408.
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 19-5-445, expiration date June 30, 2020. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (Optional) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
This proceeding is being conducted under authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on electrolytic manganese dioxide from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Instituted December 2, 2019. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is January 2, 2020. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by February 13, 2020.
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Office of the General Counsel, at 202-205-3408.
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 19-5-447, expiration date June 30, 2020. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty order on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13)
This proceeding is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (“wire rod”) from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Instituted December 2, 2019. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is January 2, 2020. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by February 13, 2020.
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) The
(6) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Office of the General Counsel, at 202-205-3408.
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 19-5-446, expiration date June 30, 2020. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (
This proceeding is being conducted under authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations Nos. 701-TA-621 and 731-TA-1447 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of ceramic tile from China, provided for in subheadings 6905.10.00, 6905.90.00, 6907.21.10, 6907.21.20, 6907.21.30, 6907.21.40, 6907.21.90, 6907.22.10, 6907.22.20, 6907.22.30, 6907.22.40, 6907.22.90, 6907.23.10, 6907.23.20, 6907.23.30, 6907.23.40, 6907.23.90, 6907.30.10, 6907.30.20, 6907.30.30, 6907.30.40, 6907.30.90, 6907.40.10, 6907.40.20, 6907.40.30, 6907.40.40, 6907.40.90, 6914.10.80, and 6914.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be subsidized and sold at less-than-fair-value.
November 14, 2019.
Christopher W. Robinson ((202) 205-2542), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Subject merchandise includes ceramic tile that undergoes minor processing in a third country prior to importation into the United States. Similarly, subject merchandise includes ceramic tile produced that undergoes minor processing after importation into the United States. Such minor processing includes, but is not limited to, one or more of the following: Beveling, cutting, trimming, staining, painting, polishing, finishing, additional firing, or any other processing that would otherwise not remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope product.
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on lightweight thermal paper from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Instituted December 2, 2019. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is January 2, 2020. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by February 13, 2020.
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Office of the General Counsel, at 202-205-3408.
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 19-5-448, expiration date June 30, 2020. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (
This proceeding is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Final order.
This final order establishes the initial 2020 aggregate production quotas for controlled substances in schedules I and II of the Controlled Substances Act and the assessment of annual needs for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine.
Scott A. Brinks, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152, Telephone: (571) 362-3261.
Section 306 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. 826) requires the Attorney General to establish aggregate production quotas for each basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule I and II and for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine. The Attorney General has delegated this function to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100.
The 2020 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs represent those quantities of schedule I and II controlled substances and the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine that may be manufactured in the United States in 2020 to provide for the estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States, for lawful export requirements, and for the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks. These quotas include imports of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, but do not include imports of controlled substances for use in industrial processes.
On September 12, 2019, a notice titled “Proposed Aggregate Production Quotas for Schedule I and II Controlled Substances and Assessment of Annual Needs for the List I Chemicals Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine for 2020” was published in the
Within the public comment period, DEA received 731 comments from DEA registrants, hospital associations, professional associations, doctors, nurses, health system organizations, State Attorneys General, and others. The comments included concerns about the quota process, concerns that further quota reductions will lead to drug shortages, requests for less interference in the doctor-patient relationship, availability of prescription drugs for chronic pain patients, requests for hearings, requests for increase in specific production quotas, and other comments outside the scope of this notice. DEA received a joint comment from two Senators urging DEA to apply DEA's new authorities to prevent and limit opioid diversion due to excessively high production levels. Although this comment was received after the close of the comment period, DEA shares the Senators' concerns and is working to improve its ability to use available databases to better quantify diversion as part of the quota process.
There were non-DEA registered commenters that expressed concerns about the decrease in aggregate production quotas. These commenters alleged that decreases to the aggregate production quotas have resulted in a shortage of injectable opioid medications and interfere with the treatment of patients. Some of these commenters also suggested that DEA separate quotas for solid oral controlled substances and injectable controlled substances, and that DEA allow consideration by individual pharmaceutical dosage forms.
DEA also received letters from many doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, and others in the medical field regarding the proposed quota reduction for fentanyl and other schedule II narcotics. These letters characterized the reductions as “extremely problematic for American healthcare providers,” stating that the reduction for fentanyl and other schedule II narcotics will lead to drug shortages, raise drug prices, lead to hardships on hospitals and surgical facilities, and negatively impact patients. These letters discussed fentanyl's appearance on the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) drug shortage list and that fentanyl is the least diverted among the covered controlled substances.
DEA is committed to ensuring an adequate and uninterrupted supply of controlled substances in order to meet legitimate medical, scientific, and export needs of the United States. Although DEA sets the aggregate production quota, it is possible that manufacturers' business practices may lead to a shortage of controlled substances at the consumer level, despite the adequacy of the aggregate production quota set by DEA. The aggregate production quotas are set by DEA in a manner to include both injectable opioids and solid oral opioids in order to ensure that the estimated medical needs of the United States are met.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 826(a)(1), “production quotas shall be established in terms of quantities of each basic class of controlled substance and not in terms of individual pharmaceutical dosage forms prepared from or containing such a controlled substance.” However, the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery Treatment for Patients and Communities Act of 2018 (SUPPORT Act), (Pub. L. 115-271), provides an exception to that general rule by now giving DEA the authority to establish quotas in terms of pharmaceutical dosage forms if the agency determines that doing so will assist in avoiding the overproduction, shortages, or diversion of a controlled substance. While DEA is now allowed to issue quotas in terms of pharmaceutical dosage form, it is not required to do so. DEA will not be utilizing this authority at the aggregate production quota level, but will be doing so at the individual dosage-form manufacturing level where it will have a greater impact on averting potential shortages. Because quotas set at the individual dosage-form manufacturing level are more directly connected to distributions of current and new FDA-approved drug products, they allow DEA to manage manufacturing quotas to alleviate any potential shortage in a more timely manner than with quotas set at the aggregate production quota level. This is also true because the aggregate production quota is initially established prior to the start of the quota calendar year.
Additionally, DEA and FDA can coordinate efforts to prevent or alleviate drug shortages pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 826(h). Such efforts may include adjusting domestic competitors' quota, completion of FDA approval to increase the number of competitors, and determining a foreign manufacturer that can meet FDA approval. For example, the domestic shortage of injectable hydromorphone that occurred in 2018 was alleviated through the collaboration of FDA and DEA to determine who were the other dosage-form manufacturers with injectable hydromorphone products in the market, whether other dosage-form manufacturers had the capability to increase their production levels to meet legitimate patient need in a timely manner, and when it was determined that the domestic manufacturers could not increase production significantly to meet legitimate patient need, DEA and FDA coordinated their regulatory authority to allow for the limited importation of injectable hydromorphone into the United States.
Pursuant to 21 CFR 1303.11, DEA must consider relevant information from the States when setting the aggregate production quota. Seven State Attorneys General submitted a joint comment expressing concerns about the estimation of diversion for all controlled substances, not accounting for over-prescribing, and the consideration of additional information to set quotas. Their concerns are addressed in more detail below.
The seven State Attorneys General commented that DEA should not take different approaches when accounting for diversion for the five covered controlled substances and the remaining controlled substances. In the letter, they discussed the mandates from the SUPPORT Act, as well as the requirements implemented through 21 CFR 1303.11 by the Controlled Substances Quota rule. 83 FR 32784. They expressed that they have similar language and purposes, even though the SUPPORT Act goes a bit further in its mandate by requiring the estimation of diversion for the five covered controlled substances. They pointed out that DEA
The States also commented that there is a lack of transparency in the setting of quotas. The States believe that DEA needs to explain the logic behind using different approaches in setting quotas. They commented that DEA must include the findings of fact when setting the quota and that transparency is essential in allowing parties to evaluate DEA's 2020 Proposed Aggregate Production Quota notice.
DEA considered various data sources in order to determine the extent of diversion of all controlled substances as is required by the recent amendments to the CSA and changes to DEA's own regulations. In accordance with factor six in 21 CFR 1303.11(b), DEA formally solicited the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and the states in August 2018, requesting information including rates of overdose deaths and abuse and overall public health impact related to controlled substances. This information was also considered pursuant to the SUPPORT Act. DEA determined that due to the grouping of drug classes in all of the sources provided, the data could not be used to estimate diversion for the purpose of setting the aggregate production quotas. However, DEA estimated diversion of the covered controlled substances defined in the SUPPORT Act utilizing DEA's internal data sources. DEA will continue to further define sources that will be useful in analyzing diversion of the remaining controlled substances.
The States acknowledged that DEA's current approach for accounting for diversion is a significant improvement but commented that DEA does not adequately account for over-prescribing. They commented that over-prescribing results when there is overproduction, which allows legitimate prescriptions to be diverted. Assuming a controlled substance is validly dispensed for a legitimate medical purpose, both the physician and patient will use their judgement to determine how much medication will be prescribed and how much they will consume. The physician's decisions may be influenced by recommendations from CDC, FDA, and professional medical organizations that have conducted and/or reviewed clinical studies used to determine prescription guidelines. Patients are ultimately going to decide for themselves how much of the legitimately prescribed medication they will consume. DEA does not control the quantity of a substance prescribed to a patient, and DEA cannot control how much of the prescription a patient decides to consume. DEA also receives assistance in curbing overprescribing from programs in place, such as the President's Safer Prescribing Plan, which seeks to reduce nationwide opioid prescription fills by one-third. DEA has observed a decline in the number of prescriptions written for schedule II opioids since 2014 and will continue to set aggregate production quotas to meet the medical needs of the United States while combating the opioid crisis. These decreases take into account the combined efforts of DEA, FDA, and CDC enforcing regulations and issuing guidance documents, as well as many states enacting prescription monitoring database programs to stem the opiate/opioid epidemic.
There are ample reasons not to pursue the methods suggested by the State Attorneys General, including that the studies on which they relied are limited in scope of procedures and number of hospitals, such that the methodology is insufficient to expand to a national level.
As pointed out by the States, “there is no perfect system of measuring other sources of diversion like over-prescription.” The States pointed to data from drug takeback programs, but currently that data is not usable for consideration in determining the aggregate production quota. There is no method in place to determine how much of the prescription medications are schedule I or II substances and which controlled substances are being returned. DEA and HHS are working together to consider options for quantifying Take-Back Program data.
The State Attorneys General commented that DEA should expand its sources of data used to set aggregate production quotas. They suggested three steps that DEA should take to gather information to set quotas which are listed below.
The State Attorneys General commented that DEA should improve usability of the ARCOS and SORS databases to gather better information on prescribing practices. They also note that DEA did not indicate whether SORS was used and minimally referred to ARCOS not being used because it contained identical information to the Theft Loss Report Database. The States commented that DEA needs to reform its process to upload SORS reports into the SORS database. Further, they commented that overdose data received from States and the CDC should be cross-referenced with ARCOS to provide context that should inform the quota-setting process.
SORS was not centralized until its recent launch on October 23, 2019. DEA will need time to sort through the system to determine its utility for aggregate production quota purposes. The submission of a suspicious order alone is not an automatic determination that the order is illicit in nature. Further investigations need to be completed to determine if a transgression has occurred.
The differences in reporting frequencies to ARCOS are specified in 21 CFR 1304.33(b). Acquisition and distribution transaction reports must be completed every quarter no later than the 15th day of the month succeeding the quarter for which it is being submitted. In the same section of the CFR, it does mention that a registrant may be given permission to file a report more frequently, but no more than on a monthly basis. The State Attorneys General request to change this regulation is outside of the scope of this final order.
The State Attorneys General expressed that DEA should expand the National Take Back Program to assist with gathering more precise data on over-prescribing. They noted that the takeback programs do not track the types and quantities of what the public turns in, limiting their value. Currently, DEA and HHS are working together to consider methods that improve data
The letter submitted by the State Attorneys General also suggested that DEA study the best practices developed by the medical community and state regulators to determine what opioid quantities are “medically necessary.” They expressed that relying exclusively on evidence of illegal activity assumes that any legally-sold controlled substance is a part of the medical and scientific needs of the United States.
DEA is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the CSA and DEA regulations that require prescriptions for controlled substances to be issued by a practitioner for a legitimate medical purpose in the usual course of his/her professional practice. However, beyond that context, DEA does not regulate the practice of medicine generally and thus does not have a role in establishing the type of “best practices” to which the commenter refers.
DEA also received 106 comments that expressed concern that DEA's proposed reduction of opioids would adversely impact the availability of pain relieving prescription drugs for people with chronic pain. These comments were general in nature, and raised issues of specific medical illnesses and medical treatment, and therefore are outside of the scope of this Final Order. As a result, these comments did not provide new discrete data for consideration, and they do not impact the original analysis involved in establishing the 2020 aggregate production quotas.
DEA sets aggregate production quotas in a manner to ensure that all prescriptions that are authorized for legitimate medical purposes can be filled. Prescribers who are authorized to dispense controlled substances are responsible for adhering to the laws and regulations set forth under the CSA, which require doctors to only write prescriptions for legitimate medical needs. Any practitioner issuing an invalid prescription for controlled substances, and any pharmacy knowingly filling such a prescription, would be in violation of the CSA.
Two commenters urged DEA to hold a public hearing to receive feedback from stakeholders. They asked that DEA bring together all stakeholders, allowing stakeholders to publicly discuss their concerns.
Under the DEA regulations, the decision of whether to grant this type of a hearing on the issues raised by the commenters lies solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (21 CFR 1303.11(c) and 21 CFR 1303.13(c)). I find that neither of the foregoing two requests presented any evidence that would lead me to conclude that a hearing is necessary or warranted. Therefore, I decline to order a hearing on the issues presented by the commenters.
The DEA received comments from five DEA-registered manufacturers regarding twenty-four different schedule I and II controlled substances. Commenters stated the proposed aggregate production quotas for amphetamine (for sale), fentanyl, hydromorphone, methylphenidate, morphine, noroxymorphone (for conversion), and oxycodone (for sale) were potentially insufficient to provide for the estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States, export requirements, and the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks. Commenters requested the proposed aggregate production quotas for FUB-144, 5F-AB-PINACA, 5F-EDMB-PINACA, 5F-MDMB-PICA, MMB-CHMICA, FUB-AKB48 (FUB-APINACA), 5F-CUMYL-PINACA, 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, NM2201, 4-Methyl-alpha-ethylaminopentiophenone (4-MEAP), N-Ethylhexedrone, 4-Chloro-alpha-pyrrolidinovalerophenone (4-Chloro-alpha-PVP), 4′-Methyl-alpha-pyrrolidinohexiophenone (MPHP), N-Ethylpentylone, alpha-Pyrrolidinohexanophenone (alpha-PHP), and alpha-Pyrrolidinoheptaphenone (PV8), be sufficient for additional quota requests.
DEA has considered the comments for specific controlled substances and made adjustments as needed which are described below in the section titled Determination of 2020 Aggregate Production Quotas and Assessment of Annual Needs. DEA received one comment to the proposed established 2020 assessment of annual needs for ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine regarding the difficulty in procuring finished dosage-forms of ephedrine. DEA has considered this comment in the section regarding drug shortages of controlled substances. This letter characterized the reductions of controlled substances and ephedrine as “extremely problematic for American healthcare providers,” stating that these reductions will lead to drug shortages, raise drug prices, lead to hardships on hospitals and surgical facilities, and negatively impact patients.
DEA is required under the CSA to establish quotas for ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine to provide for the estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States, for lawful export requirements, and for the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks. Although DEA sets the assessment of annual needs, it is possible that manufacturers' business practices may lead to a shortage of ephedrine drug products at the consumer level, despite the adequacy of the assessment of annual needs set by DEA. For instance, DEA does not have the authority to dictate when during the calendar year the manufacturer actually utilizes the quota granted to them. Also, DEA cannot dictate how much of the granted quota the manufacturer allocates for use in a single production run. The assessment of annual needs is set by DEA in a manner to include all dosage forms of ephedrine in order to ensure that the estimated medical needs of the United States are met.
Additionally, DEA and FDA can coordinate efforts to prevent or alleviate drug shortages. Such efforts may include adjusting competitors' domestic or import quotas and completion of FDA approval to increase the number of competitors.
DEA received comments which addressed issues that are outside the scope of this final order. The comments were general in nature and raised issues of specific medical illnesses, medical treatments, and medication costs and, therefore, are outside of the scope of this Final Order. DEA also received comments asserting that illicit drug use, and not prescription drug use, is the main factor in the opioid crisis. Although DEA is genuinely concerned with illicit drug use and its involvement in the opioid crisis, the manufacturing of illicit substances is not considered when determining the aggregate production quotas because such illicit manufacturing cannot be tempered by adjusting the aggregate production quotas, therefore it is outside the scope of this final order.
All of these out of scope issues do not impact the original analysis involved in establishing the 2020 aggregate production quotas.
In determining the 2020 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs, DEA has taken into consideration the above comments along with the factors set forth in 21 CFR 1303.11 and 21 CFR 1315.11, in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 826(a), and other relevant factors, including the 2019 manufacturing quotas, current 2019 sales and inventories, anticipated 2020 export requirements, industrial use, additional applications for 2020 quotas, as well as information on research and product development requirements. Based on all of the above, the Administrator is adjusting the 2020 aggregate production quotas for 4-Methyl-alpha-ethylaminopentiophenone (4-MEAP), N-Ethylhexedrone, 4-Chloro-alpha-pyrrolidinovalerophenone (4-Chloro-alpha-PVP), 4'-Methyl-alpha-pyrrolidinohexiophenone (MPHP), alpha-Pyrrolidinohexanophenone (alpha-PHP), alpha-Pyrrolidinoheptaphenone (PV8), amphetamine (for sale), oxycodone (for sale), and oxymorphone (for sale).
Regarding FUB-144, 5F-AB-PINACA, 5F-EDMB-PINACA, 5F-MDMB-PICA, MMB-CHMICA, FUB-AKB48 (FUB-APINACA), 5F-CUMYL-PINACA, 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, NM2201, N-Ethylpentylone, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methylphenidate, morphine, noroxymorphone (for conversion), and oxycodone (for sale), DEA has determined the proposed aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs are sufficient to provide for the 2020 estimated medical, scientific, research, industrial needs of the United States, export requirements, and the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks. This final order establishes these aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs at the same amounts as proposed.
The SUPPORT Act (21 U.S.C. 826(i)(1)(a)) requires that “in establishing any quota under this section . . ., for [the covered controlled substances], the Attorney General shall estimate the amount of diversion of the [covered controlled substances] that occurs in the United States.” To estimate diversion as is required by the SUPPORT Act, DEA aggregated the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) of each covered controlled substance by metric weight where the data was available in the aforementioned databases. Based on the individual entries into the aforementioned databases, DEA calculated the estimated amount of diversion by multiplying the strength of the API listed for each finished dosage form by the total amount of units reported to estimate the metric weight in kilograms of the controlled substance being diverted. The estimate of diversion for each of the covered controlled substances is reported below.
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 826, 21 CFR 1303.11, and 21 CFR 1315.11, the Administrator hereby establishes the 2020 aggregate production quotas for the following schedule I and II controlled substances and the 2020 assessment of annual needs for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, expressed in grams of anhydrous acid or base, as follows:
The Administrator also establishes aggregate production quotas for all other schedule I and II controlled substances included in 21 CFR 1308.11 and 1308.12 at zero. In accordance with 21 CFR 1303.13 and 21 CFR 1315.13, upon consideration of the relevant factors, the Administrator may adjust the 2020 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs as needed.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 31, 2020.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Amy Lauger, Supervisory Statistician, Institutional Research and Special Projects Unit, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information collection:
1
2
3
4
In 2003, the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA or the Act) was signed into law. The Act requires BJS to “carry out, for each calendar year, a comprehensive statistical review and analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape.” The Act further instructs BJS to collect survey data: “. . . the Bureau shall . . . use surveys and other statistical studies of current and former inmates . . .”
To implement the Act, BJS developed the National Prison Rape Statistics Program (NPRS), which includes four separate data collection efforts: The Survey on Sexual Violence (SSV), the National Inmate Survey (NIS), the National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC), and the National Former Prisoner Survey (NFPS). The NIS collects information on sexual victimization self-reported by inmates held in adult correctional facilities, both prisons and jails. The NIS has been conducted three times, in 2007 (NIS-1), in 2008-09 (NIS-2), and in 2011-12 (NIS-3). Each iteration of NIS was conducted in at least one facility in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In each iteration of the survey, inmates completed the survey using an audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI), whereby they heard questions and instructions via headphones and responded to the survey items via a touch-screen interface.
The collection requested in this notice is the fourth iteration of the National Inmate Survey. For NIS-4, administration of the survey in prisons will take place separately from survey administration in jails. This collection request is specific to conducting the survey in adult prison facilities.
The survey instrument for the NIS-4 in Prisons is slightly modified from the previous iterations. The main difference is the addition of a new set of incident-specific questions administered to respondents who affirmatively indicate they were sexually victimized at some point in the previous 12 months while housed in their current prison facility. These incident-specific questions will provide information to the public on the nature of sexual victimization in prisons, such as where incidents occurred within the facility, the relationship between the victim and the alleged perpetrator(s), and whether the victim suffered any injuries as a result of the incident, among other incident characteristics.
5
6
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) is providing notice to the public that the WHD sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Records to be Kept by Employers—Fair Labor Standards Act,” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). WHD is notifying the public that the information collection has been revised and extended effective immediately through November 30, 2022.
The OMB approval of the revision and extension of this information collection is effective immediately with an expiration date of November 30, 2022.
Robert Waterman, Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretations, Wage and Hour, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-0406 (this is not a toll-free number) or by sending an email to
The Department of Labor submitted a proposed revision to the information collection titled: Records to be Kept by Employers—Fair Labor Standards Act (OMB Control Number 1235-0018), in conjunction with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). This NPRM proposed updating and revising the regulations issued under the Fair Labor Standards Act implementing the exemptions from minimum wage and overtime pay requirements for executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, and computer employees (RIN 1235-AA20, “Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees).” The NPRM published in the
On November 19, 2019, the OMB issued a Notice of Action approving the revision and extension of this information collection under OMB Control Number 1235-0018. Section (k) of 5 CFR 1320.11, “Clearance of Collections of Information in Proposed Rules” states, “After receipt of notification of OMB's approval, instruction to make a substantive or material change to, disapproval of a collection of information, or failure to act, the agency shall publish a notice in the
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) is providing notice to the public that the WHD sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Employment Information Form,” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). WHD is notifying the public that the information collection has been revised and extended effective immediately through November 30, 2022.
The OMB approval of the revision and extension of this information collection is effective immediately with an expiration date of November 30, 2022.
Robert Waterman, Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretations, Wage and Hour, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-0406 (this is not a toll-free number) or by sending an email to
The Department of Labor submitted a proposed revision to the information collection titled: Employment Information Form (OMB Control Number 1235-0021), in conjunction with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). This NPRM proposed updating and revising the regulations issued under the Fair Labor Standards Act implementing the exemptions from minimum wage and overtime pay requirements for executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, and computer employees (RIN 1235-AA20, “Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees).” The NPRM published in the
On November 19, 2019, the OMB issued a Notice of Action approving the revision and extension of this information collection under OMB Control Number 1235-0021. Section (k) of 5 CFR 1320.11, “Clearance of Collections of Information in Proposed Rules” states, “After receipt of notification of OMB's approval, instruction to make a substantive or material change to, disapproval of a collection of information, or failure to act, the agency shall publish a notice in the
Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities; National Endowment for the Humanities; National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of Charter Renewal for Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel advisory committee.
The Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities (the Council) gives notice that the Charter for the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel advisory committee was renewed for an additional two-year period on November 22, 2019.
Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20506. Telephone: (202) 606-8322, facsimile (202) 606-8600, or email at
Pursuant to section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) and its implementing regulations, 31 CFR 102-3.65, the Council gives notice that the Charter for the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel advisory committee was renewed for an additional two-year period on November 22, 2019. The Council determined that the renewal of the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Council by the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act, 20 U.S.C. 971
The National Science Board (NSB), pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives an update to the scheduling of a previously noticed meeting for the transaction of NSB business as described below. The meeting was originally noticed in the
The final session of the meeting on Wednesday, November 20, 2019 from 1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. EST, a plenary open session, was to be held in the boardroom on the 2nd floor of the NSF headquarters, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. However, a fire alarm required NSF and NSB staff to evacuate that floor just as the session was to begin. Because most NSB members had airplane flights leaving shortly after the meeting was to end, the NSB members and other staff gathered in the lobby of a nearby hotel and conducted the session. One of the items was time-sensitive and the vote could not practically be rescheduled in a timely way.
The agenda items were covered as indicated. An audio recording of the session is available upon request.
The contact for a copy of the audio file is NSB Counsel Ann Bushmiller,
Weeks of December 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, 2019, January 6, 2020.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 9, 2019.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 23, 2019.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 30, 2019.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 6, 2020.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or by email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. 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.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Railroad Retirement Board.
Notice.
As required by the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (Act), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) hereby publishes its notice for calendar year 2020 of account balances, factors used in calculating experience-based employer contribution rates, computation of amounts related to the monthly compensation base, and the maximum daily benefit rate for days of unemployment or sickness.
The balance in notice (1) and the determinations made in notices (3) through (7) are based on data as of June 30, 2019. The balance in notice (2) is based on data as of September 30, 2019. The determinations made in notices (5) through (7) apply to the calculation, under section 8(a)(1)(C) of the Act, of employer contribution rates for 2020. The determinations made in notices (8) through (11) are effective January 1, 2020. The determination made in notice (12) is effective for registration periods beginning after June 30, 2020.
Secretary to the Board, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 N. Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Michael J. Rizzo, Bureau of the Actuary and Research, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 N. Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275, telephone (312) 751-4771.
The RRB is required by section 8(c)(1) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (Act) (45 U.S.C. 358(c)(1)) as amended by Public Law 100-647, to proclaim by October 15 of each year certain system-wide factors used in calculating experience-based employer contribution rates for the following year. The RRB is further required by section 8(c)(2) of the Act (45 U.S.C. 358(c)(2)) to publish the amounts so determined and proclaimed. The RRB is required by section 12(r)(3) of the Act (45 U.S.C. 362(r)(3)) to publish by December 11, 2019, the computation of the calendar year 2020 monthly compensation base (section 1(i) of the Act) and amounts described in sections 1(k), 2(c), 3 and 4(a-2)(i)(A) of the Act which are related to changes in the monthly compensation base. Also, the RRB is required to publish, by June 11, 2020, the maximum daily benefit rate under section 2(a)(3) of the Act for days of unemployment and days of sickness in registration periods beginning after June 30, 2020. Pursuant to section 8(c)(2) and section 12(r)(3) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (Act) (45 U.S.C. 358(c)(2) and 45 U.S.C. 362(r)(3), respectively), the Board gives notice of the following:
1. The balance to the credit of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance (RUI) Account, as of June 30, 2019, is $157,488,983.12;
2. The September 30, 2019, balance of any new loans to the RUI Account, including accrued interest, is zero;
3. The system compensation base is $4,207,873,508.12 as of June 30, 2019;
4. The cumulative system unallocated charge balance is ($443,788,751.14) as of June 30, 2019;
5. The pooled credit ratio for calendar year 2020 is zero;
6. The pooled charged ratio for calendar year 2020 is zero;
7. The surcharge rate for calendar year 2020 is zero;
8. The monthly compensation base under section 1(i) of the Act is $1,655 for months in calendar year 2020;
9. The amount described in sections 1(k) and 3 of the Act as “2.5 times the monthly compensation base” is $4,137.50 for base year (calendar year) 2020;
10. The amount described in section 4(a-2)(i)(A) of the Act as “2.5 times the monthly compensation base” is $4,137.50 with respect to disqualifications ending in calendar year 2020;
11. The amount described in section 2(c) of the Act as “an amount that bears the same ratio to $775 as the monthly compensation base for that year as computed under section 1(i) of this Act bears to $600” is $2,138 for months in calendar year 2020;
12. The maximum daily benefit rate under section 2(a)(3) of the Act is $80 with respect to days of unemployment and days of sickness in registration periods beginning after June 30, 2020.
A surcharge is added in the calculation of each employer's contribution rate, subject to the applicable maximum rate, for a calendar year whenever the balance to the credit of the RUI Account on the preceding June 30 is less than the greater of $100 million or the amount that bears the same ratio to $100 million as the system compensation base for that June 30 bears to the system compensation base as of June 30, 1991. If the RUI Account balance is less than $100 million (as indexed), but at least $50 million (as indexed), the surcharge will be 1.5 percent. If the RUI Account balance is less than $50 million (as indexed), but greater than zero, the surcharge will be 2.5 percent. The maximum surcharge of 3.5 percent applies if the RUI Account balance is less than zero.
The ratio of the June 30, 2019 system compensation base of $4,207,873,508.12 to the June 30, 1991 system compensation base of $2,763,287,237.04 is 1.52277818. Multiplying 1.52277818 by $100 million yields $152,277,818.00. Multiplying $50 million by 1.52277818 produces $76,138,909.00. The Account balance on June 30, 2019, was $157,488,983.12. Accordingly, the surcharge rate for calendar year 2020 is zero.
For years after 1988, section 1(i) of the Act contains a formula for determining the monthly compensation base. Under the prescribed formula, the monthly compensation base increases by approximately two-thirds of the cumulative growth in average national wages since 1984. The monthly compensation base for months in calendar year 2020 shall be equal to the greater of (a) $600 or (b) $600 [1 + {(A—37,800)/56,700}], where A equals the amount of the applicable base with respect to tier 1 taxes for 2020 under section 3231(e)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Section 1(i) further provides that if the amount so determined is not a multiple of $5, it shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $5.
Using the calendar year 2020 tier 1 tax base of $137,700 for A above produces the amount of $1,657.14, which must then be rounded to $1,655. Accordingly, the monthly compensation base is determined to be $1,655 for months in calendar year 2020.
For years after 1988, sections 1(k), 3, 4(a-2)(i)(A) and 2(c) of the Act contain
Under section 1(k), remuneration earned from employment covered under the Act cannot be considered subsidiary remuneration if the employee's base year compensation is less than 2.5 times the monthly compensation base for months in such base year. Under section 3, an employee shall be a “qualified employee” if his/her base year compensation is not less than 2.5 times the monthly compensation base for months in such base year. Under section 4(a-2)(i)(A), an employee who leaves work voluntarily without good cause is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits until he has been paid compensation of not less than 2.5 times the monthly compensation base for months in the calendar year in which the disqualification ends.
Multiplying 2.5 by the calendar year 2020 monthly compensation base of $1,655 produces $4,137.50. Accordingly, the amount determined under sections 1(k), 3 and 4(a-2)(i)(A) is $4,137.50 for calendar year 2020.
Under section 2(c), the maximum amount of normal benefits paid for days of unemployment within a benefit year and the maximum amount of normal benefits paid for days of sickness within a benefit year shall not exceed an employee's compensation in the base year. In determining an employee's base year compensation, any money remuneration in a month not in excess of an amount that bears the same ratio to $775 as the monthly compensation base for that year bears to $600 shall be taken into account.
The calendar year 2020 monthly compensation base is $1,655. The ratio of $1,655 to $600 is 2.75833333. Multiplying 2.75833333 by $775 produces $2,138. Accordingly, the amount determined under section 2(c) is $2,138 for months in calendar year 2020.
Section 2(a)(3) contains a formula for determining the maximum daily benefit rate for registration periods beginning after June 30, 1989, and after each June 30 thereafter. Legislation enacted on October 9, 1996, revised the formula for indexing maximum daily benefit rates. Under the prescribed formula, the maximum daily benefit rate increases by approximately two-thirds of the cumulative growth in average national wages since 1984. The maximum daily benefit rate for registration periods beginning after June 30, 2020, shall be equal to 5 percent of the monthly compensation base for the base year immediately preceding the beginning of the benefit year. Section 2(a)(3) further provides that if the amount so computed is not a multiple of $1, it shall be rounded down to the nearest multiple of $1.
The calendar year 2019 monthly compensation base is $1,605. Multiplying $1,605 by 0.05 yields $80.25. Accordingly, the maximum daily benefit rate for days of unemployment and days of sickness beginning in registration periods after June 30, 2020, is determined to be $80.
By Authority of the Board.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The Securities and Exchange Commission Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee, established pursuant to Section 40 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as added by the SEC Small Business Advocate Act of 2016, is providing notice that it will hold a public telephone meeting. The public is invited to submit written statements to the Committee.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 11, 2019, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. Written statements should be received on or before December 11, 2019.
Members of the public may attend the meeting by listening to the audiocast accessible on the Commission's website at
• Use the Commission's internet submission form (
• Send an email message to
• Send paper statements to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Statements also will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. (ET). All statements received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
Julie Z. Davis, Senior Special Counsel, Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation, at (202) 551-5407, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-3628.
The meeting will be open to the public. Persons needing special accommodations because of a disability should notify the contact person listed in the section above entitled
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt new NYSE National Rule 11.5190 that is substantially the same as Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Rule 5190. The proposed rule change is intended to harmonize Exchange rules with the rules of the Exchange's affiliates and FINRA and thus promote consistency within the securities industry. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new NYSE National Rule 11.5190 that is substantially the same as FINRA Rule 5190.
The Exchange proposes to adopt Regulation M-related notification rules harmonized with the rules of FINRA, NYSE, NYSE American and NYSE Arca both to provide uniformity in the marketplace as well as to reduce duplicative reporting obligations for the same subject matter. The Exchange accordingly proposes to adopt new Rule 11.5190, which is based on FINRA Rule 5190, NYSE Rule 5190, NYSE American Rule 5190—Equities, and NYSE Arca Rule 9.5190-E.
Proposed Rule 11.5190 would require, in part, that an ETP Holder acting as a manager (or in a similar capacity) of an offering to provide the following information:
• The ETP Holder's determination as to whether a one-day or five-day restricted period applies under Rule 101 of SEC Regulation M and the basis for such determination, including the contemplated date and time of the commencement of the restricted period, the listed security name and symbol, and identification of the distribution participants and affiliated purchasers, no later than the business day prior to the first complete trading session of the applicable restricted period, unless later notification is necessary under specific circumstances;
• the pricing of the distribution, including the listed security name and symbol, the type of security, the number of shares offered, the offering price, the last sale before the distribution, the pricing basis, the SEC effective date and time, the trade date, the restricted period, and identification of the distribution participants and affiliated purchasers, no later than the close of business the next business day following the pricing of the distribution, unless later notification is necessary under specific circumstances; and
• the cancellation or postponement of any distribution for which prior notification of commencement of the restricted period has been submitted under paragraph (c)(1)(A), immediately upon the cancellation or postponement of such distribution. If no ETP Holder is acting as a manager (or in a similar capacity) of such distribution, then each ETP Holder that is a distribution participant or affiliated purchaser shall provide the notice required under paragraph (c)(1), unless another ETP Holder has assumed responsibility in writing for compliance therewith.
Proposed Rule 11.5190 is substantially similar to FINRA Rule 5190, except that the term “member” has been replaced with “ETP Holder” throughout to reflect the Exchange's membership. Also, in proposed subsection (e), the Exchange proposes to replace “OTC Security” with “security” and add the phrase “stabilizing bids” to the first sentence. These changes are consistent with NYSE Rule 5190(e), NYSE American Rule 5190(e)—Equities, and NYSE Arca Rule 9.5190-E.
Consistent with current practice that notifications “to the Exchange” are submitted directly to FINRA,
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will harmonize its rules with the rules of FINRA and the Exchange's affiliates. The Exchange accordingly believes that the proposed rule change supports the objectives of the Act by providing greater harmonization between Exchange Rules and FINRA Rules of similar purpose, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for dual members of both self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”). To the extent the Exchange has proposed changes that differ from the FINRA version of the rules, such changes are technical in nature and do not change the substance of the proposed Rule.
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 proposal is intended to harmonize the Exchange's rules with the rules of other SROs with respect to Regulation M compliance. The Exchange believes that any burden on competition would be clearly outweighed by the important regulatory goal of ensuring clear and consistent requirements applicable across SROs, avoiding duplication, and mitigating any risk of SROs implementing different standards in these important areas. Further, the proposed changes would apply to all ETP Holders in the same manner and therefore would not impose any unnecessary intramarket burdens.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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 Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Rule 510, Minimum Price Variations and Minimum Trading
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website 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 Exchange is a participant in an industry-wide pilot program that provides for the quoting and trading of certain option classes in penny increments (the “Penny Pilot Program” or “Program”). The Penny Pilot Program allows the quoting and trading of certain option classes in minimum increments of $0.01 for all series in such option classes with a price of less than $3.00; and in minimum increments of $0.05 for all series in such option classes with a price of $3.00 or higher. Options overlying the PowerShares QQQ
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny Pilot Program for six months, allows the Exchange to continue to participate in a program that has been viewed as beneficial to traders, investors and public customers and viewed as successful by the other options exchanges participating in it.
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. Specifically, the Exchange believes that, by extending the expiration of the Pilot Program, the proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Penny Pilot Program and a determination of how the Program should be structured in the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace, facilitating investor protection, and fostering a competitive environment. In addition, consistent with previous practices, the Exchange believes the other options exchanges will be filing similar extensions of the Penny Pilot Program.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Rule 510, Minimum Price Variations and Minimum Trading Increments, Interpretation and Policy .01 to extend the pilot program for the quoting and trading of certain options in pennies.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website 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 Exchange is a participant in an industry-wide pilot program that provides for the quoting and trading of certain option classes in penny increments (the “Penny Pilot Program” or “Program”). The Penny Pilot Program allows the quoting and trading of certain option classes in minimum increments of $0.01 for all series in such option classes with a price of less than $3.00; and in minimum increments of $0.05 for all series in such option classes with a price of $3.00 or higher. Options overlying the PowerShares QQQ
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny Pilot Program for six months, allows the Exchange to continue to participate in a program that has been viewed as beneficial to traders, investors and public customers and viewed as successful by the other options exchanges participating in it.
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. Specifically, the Exchange believes that, by extending the expiration of the Pilot Program, the proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Penny Pilot Program and a determination of how the Program should be structured in the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace, facilitating investor protection, and fostering a competitive environment. In addition, consistent with previous practices, the Exchange
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 1, 2019, MIAX PEARL, LLC (“MIAX PEARL” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On November 20, 2019, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-PEARL-2019-023).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 1, 2019, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (“MIAX Options” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt new NYSE Chicago Rule 11.5190 that is substantially the same as Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Rule 5190. The proposed rule change is intended to harmonize Exchange rules with the rules of the Exchange's affiliates and FINRA and thus promote consistency within the securities industry. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new NYSE Chicago Rule 11.5190 that is substantially the same as FINRA Rule 5190.
The Exchange proposes to adopt Regulation M-related notification rules harmonized with the rules of FINRA, NYSE, NYSE American and NYSE Arca both to provide uniformity in the marketplace as well as to reduce duplicative reporting obligations for the same subject matter. The Exchange accordingly proposes to adopt new Rule 11.5190, which is based on FINRA Rule 5190, NYSE Rule 5190, NYSE American Rule 5190—Equities, and NYSE Arca Rule 9.5190-E.
Proposed Rule 11.5190 would require, in part, that a Participant acting as a manager (or in a similar capacity) of an offering to provide the following information:
• The Participant's determination as to whether a one-day or five-day restricted period applies under Rule 101 of SEC Regulation M and the basis for such determination, including the contemplated date and time of the commencement of the restricted period, the listed security name and symbol, and identification of the distribution participants and affiliated purchasers, no later than the business day prior to the first complete trading session of the applicable restricted period, unless later notification is necessary under specific circumstances;
• the pricing of the distribution, including the listed security name and symbol, the type of security, the number of shares offered, the offering price, the last sale before the distribution, the pricing basis, the SEC effective date and time, the trade date, the restricted period, and identification of the distribution participants and affiliated purchasers, no later than the close of business the next business day following the pricing of the distribution, unless later notification is necessary under specific circumstances; and
• the cancellation or postponement of any distribution for which prior notification of commencement of the restricted period has been submitted under paragraph (c)(1)(A), immediately
Proposed Rule 11.5190 is substantially similar to FINRA Rule 5190, except that the term “member” has been replaced with “Participant” throughout to reflect the Exchange's membership. Also, in proposed subsection (e), the Exchange proposes to replace “OTC Security” with “security” and add the phrase “stabilizing bids” to the first sentence. These changes are consistent with NYSE Rule 5190(e), NYSE American Rule 5190(e)—Equities, and NYSE Arca Rule 9.5190-E.
Consistent with current practice that notifications “to the Exchange” are submitted directly to FINRA,
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will harmonize its rules with the rules of FINRA and the Exchange's affiliates. The Exchange accordingly believes that the proposed rule change supports the objectives of the Act by providing greater harmonization between Exchange Rules and FINRA Rules of similar purpose, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for dual members of both self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”). To the extent the Exchange has proposed changes that differ from the FINRA version of the rules, such changes are technical in nature and do not change the substance of the proposed Rule.
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 proposal is intended to harmonize the Exchange's rules with the rules of other SROs with respect to Regulation M compliance. The Exchange believes that any burden on competition would be clearly outweighed by the important regulatory goal of ensuring clear and consistent requirements applicable across SROs, avoiding duplication, and mitigating any risk of SROs implementing different standards in these important areas. Further, the proposed changes would apply to all Participants in the same manner and therefore would not impose any unnecessary intramarket burdens.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Commission will host the SEC State of Our Securities Markets Conference on Wednesday, December 4, 2019 beginning at 9:30 a.m. (ET).
The event will be held at the SEC Headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549. The event's panel discussions will be webcast on the Commission's website at
This meeting will be open to the public.
This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the conference. The SEC Chairman will participate in a fireside chat during the event. Additionally, other SEC Commissioners may be in attendance. The event will include discussions concerning the ever-changing economic, risk and market environment and what those changes mean for the structure and function of the securities markets. Areas of focus will include global macroeconomic trends—and their impacts on capital markets; changes to the global equity and credit markets—including how today's markets differ from those of the early 2000s; and market concentration and fragmentation within certain areas of the securities markets, including relevant causes and potential risks and effects.
For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) and Rule 19b-4, 17 CFR 240.19b-4, notice is hereby given that on November 15, 2019, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICE Clear Credit” or “ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by ICC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to make certain changes to the ICC Clearing Rules (the “Rules”)
In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
ICE Clear Credit proposes amendments to its Rules to incorporate changes to the 2014 Definitions that are intended to address so-called “narrowly tailored credit events”. In the wake of certain credit events and potential credit events in the CDS market in recent years, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (“ISDA”), in consultation with market participants, has developed and published the 2019 Narrowly Tailored Credit Event Supplement to the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions (the “NTCE Supplement”).
As described by ISDA in the attached guidance to the NTCE Supplement, the supplement was published in light of concerns among market participants and regulators about “instances of [CDS] market participants entering into arrangements with corporations that are narrowly tailored to trigger a credit event for CDS contracts while minimizing the impact on the corporation, in order to increase payment to the buyers of CDS protection.”
With respect to the Failure to Pay credit event, the NTCE Supplement adopts a concept of a “Credit Deterioration Requirement.” If applicable, this requirement will provide that a failure of a reference entity to make a payment on an obligation will not constitute a Failure to Pay Credit Event if the failure “does not directly or indirectly either result from, or result in, a deterioration in the creditworthiness or financial condition” of the reference entity. As such, a “narrowly tailored” or “manufactured” failure to pay, which does not reflect or result in a credit deterioration, would not constitute a Credit Event for CDS Contracts that incorporate the NTCE Supplement and apply the Credit Deterioration Requirement. The NTCE Supplement also includes guidance as to factors relevant to the determination of whether credit deterioration has occurred. That determination would, under the 2014 Definitions, in the ordinary course be made by the relevant Credit Derivatives Determinations Committee.
The NTCE Supplement also amends the method of calculating the Outstanding Principal Balance of obligations. The amendments are intended to address a potential scenario where a corporation agrees to issue a bond at a substantial discount to its principal amount, where the bond could be delivered in settlement of a CDS at its full principal amount. Under the 2014 Definitions, the Quantum of the Claim (which is used to determine the Outstanding Principal Balance used in calculating settlement obligations) is determined taking into account any applicable laws insofar as they reduce the size of the claim to reflect the original issue price or accrued value of the obligation. The NTCE Supplement clarifies that the applicable laws to be considered include any bankruptcy or insolvency law or other law affecting creditors' rights to which the relevant obligation is or may become subject. In addition, the NTCE Supplement includes the concept of “Fallback Discounting,” which if designated to be applicable, provides a method for discounting the Quantum of the Claim (where it is not otherwise reduced under applicable law or pursuant to its own terms) of an obligation that is issued at less than 95% of its principal amount, based on straight-line interpolation between the issue price and the principal amount.
ICE Clear Credit has been advised that CDS market participants are expected to commence transacting in CDS incorporating the NTCE Supplement (with Credit Deterioration Requirement and Fallback Discounting applicable) on or about January 27, 2020. In addition, ISDA has published, and opened for adherence, an NTCE Protocol pursuant to which parties may, on a multilateral basis, agree to amend outstanding, non-cleared CDS transactions to incorporate the NTCE Supplement. The amendments made by the NTCE Protocol are also expected to have an implementation date on or about January 27, 2020. Adherence to the protocol will thus make existing transactions fungible with transactions on the new terms. Accordingly, ICE Clear Credit is proposing to amend its Rules for relevant products to incorporate the NTCE Supplement, both for new and existing cleared transactions. For this purpose, the proposed ICC amendments will apply to all cleared CDS contracts with corporate (
Specifically, ICC would amend Rule 20-102 to include new definitions for “NTCE Amending Contracts”, which would be those Contracts being amended to incorporate the NTCE Supplement, as specified in a list to be maintained by ICC, and “NTCE Effective Date”, which will be the date of implementation of the amendment. The NTCE Effective Date will initially be January 27, 2020 (or such later date as designated by ICC by Circular). Rule 20-102 would also include a definition for the NTCE Supplement.
ICC would further amend each relevant subchapter of Chapter 26 of the Rules to implement the NTCE Supplement. A set of amendments would apply to index CDS transactions and a separate set of amendments would apply to single-name CDS transactions.
In the case of index CDS, for CDX.NA Index CDS transactions, in subchapter 26A, in Rule 26A-102, the definition of CDX.NA Untranched Terms Supplement would be amended to include the new 2020 standard terms supplement for such transactions, as published by ISDA, which incorporates the NTCE Supplement, along with conforming changes to cross-references. Rule 26A-316 would be amended by adding a new paragraph (e), which provides that open positions in CDX.NA Untranched Contracts that are NTCE Amending Contracts would be amended, effective as of the NTCE Effective Date, to reference the updated 2020 standard terms supplement in lieu of the standard terms supplement previously in effect. This will have the effect of converting all existing CDX.NA Untranched Contracts to reference the new standard terms supplement, such that they will be fungible with new CDX.NA Untranched Contracts, which will also reference the new standard terms supplement. New paragraph (e) would also provide that the amendments will be effective regardless of whether any transaction record in the Deriv/SERV warehouse is updated to reflect the change.
Substantially similar changes for other categories of index CDS would also be made in subchapters 26F (for iTraxx Europe Untranched Contracts) and 26J (for iTraxx Asia/Pacific Untranched Contracts).
In the case of single-name CDS, for Standard North American Corporate (SNAC) Contracts, in subchapter 26B, Rule 26B-616 would be amended by adding a new paragraph (c), which provides that open positions in SNAC Contracts that are NTCE Amending Contracts would be amended, effective as of the NTCE Effective Date, to incorporate the NTCE Supplement and specify that Fallback Discounting and Credit Deterioration Requirement will be applicable. The contracts would also be amended to reference the new ISDA physical settlement matrix, to be published as of the NTCE Effective Date (or other relevant implementation date as determined by ICC). The amendments will have the effect of converting existing SNAC Contracts to reference the updated physical settlement matrix, such that they will be fungible with new SNAC Contracts, which will also reference that matrix. New paragraph (c) would also provide that the amendments will be effective regardless of whether any transaction record in the Deriv/SERV warehouse is updated to reflect the change.
Substantially similar changes for other categories of single-name CDS would also be made in subchapters 26G (for Standard European Corporate Contracts), 26H (for Standard European Financial Corporate Contracts), 26M (for
ICC believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
The amendments incorporate changes to the standard terms of CDS Contracts that are being widely adopted by market participants to address potential concerns that have arisen with so-called narrowly tailored credit events. The amendments reflect amendments to the 2014 Definitions, specifically with respect to the Failure to Pay and Outstanding Principal Balance definitions, that have been developed by ISDA, in consultation with market participants in both the cleared and uncleared CDS markets, and are set out in the NTCE Supplement. ICE Clear Credit understands that for the uncleared swap market, these amendments are expected to be widely implemented through the NTCE Protocol. ICE Clear Credit notes that the heads of the Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the UK Financial Conduct Authority have stated that they welcome the efforts to implement the amendments set out in the NTCE Supplement and NTCE Protocol.
The amendments will also satisfy relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22,
ICE Clear Credit does not believe the proposed amendments would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The amendments reflect an industry-wide initiative designed to apply to all CDS market participants, in both the cleared and uncleared markets. ICC's specific amendments to its Rules will apply consistently across all Participants and Non-Participant Parties. ICC further expects that other market participants will make similar changes to their contracts and terms of trading. As a result, ICC does not expect that the proposed changes will adversely affect access to clearing or the ability of Participants, their customers or other market participants to continue to clear contracts, including CDS Contracts. ICC also does not believe the amendments would materially affect the cost of clearing or otherwise limit market Participants' choices for selecting clearing services. Accordingly, ICC does not believe the amendments would impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.
ICC has not solicited or received written comments with respect to the proposed rule changes. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments on the proposed rule changes received by ICC.
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, security-based swap
• 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.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2019-013 and should be submitted on or before December 23, 2019.
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 principal purpose of the proposed amendments is for ICE Clear Europe to add delivery terms relating to the ICE Futures Europe Permian West Texas Light Crude Oil Futures Contracts (the “ICE WTL Futures Contracts”) and the ICE Endex Austrian VTP Natural Gas Daily Futures Contracts (the “ICE Endex VTP Natural Gas Daily Futures”, and collectively, the “Contracts”).
In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
ICE Clear Europe is proposing to amend its Delivery Procedures to amend Section 9 and Part CC to provide delivery procedures relating to the ICE WTL Futures Contracts, which will be traded on ICE Futures Europe and cleared by ICE Clear Europe. In addition, ICE Clear Europe is proposing to amend Part EE to provide delivery procedures relating to the ICE Endex VTP Natural Gas Daily Futures, which will be traded on ICE Endex and cleared by ICE Clear Europe.
Currently, Section 9 and Part CC set out the delivery specifications and procedures for deliveries under the ICE Futures Europe Permian West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil Futures Contracts (“ICE WTI Contracts”). The proposed amendments would extend Section 9 and Part CC to also apply to the ICE WTL Futures Contracts, on substantially the same basis as the ICE WTI Contracts. In this regard, the amended procedures would address, with respect to the ICE WTL Futures Contracts, among other matters, delivery options, delivery timetables, the nominations process, invoicing, provision of buyer's and seller's security, delivery tolerances, and relevant documentation. Amended Part CC would make clear that the ICE WTI Contracts and ICE WTL Futures Contracts remain separate contracts and would not be fungible, and that the various delivery documentation for each of the contract types would need to clearly reference the type to which they refer.
The amendments would add a new definition of “Permian WT,” which is used to refer to both types of contracts where appropriate in the Delivery Procedures. The definition of “Tariffs” in Part CC would be extended to also
Currently, Part EE sets out the delivery specifications and procedures for deliveries under the ICE Endex CEGH Austrian VTP Natural Gas Futures (“ICE Endex VTP Natural Gas Futures”). The proposed amendments would extend Part EE to also apply to the ICE Endex VTP Natural Gas Daily Futures, on a similar basis.
In this regard, the amended procedures would address, with respect to ICE Endex VTP Natural Gas Daily Futures, among other matters, trade nominations, the delivery process, delivery timetables, Clearing House liability, nominations process, invoicing, provision of buyer's and seller's security, delivery failures and relevant documentation. Separate delivery timetables (both for routine and failed deliveries) would be added for the ICE Index VTP Natural Gas Daily Futures, which would address in further detail the timing of the nominations process and the provision of buyer's and seller's security, among other matters. A new documentation summary would also be added for the ICE Endex VTP Natural Gas Daily Futures.
The amendments would also add a new definition for “ICE Endex VTP Natural Gas Daily Futures” and amend the defined term, “ICE Endex VTP Natural Gas,” to “ICE Endex VTP Natural Gas Futures”. Additional conforming amendments would be made throughout Part EE to incorporate the inclusion of the ICE Endex VTP Natural Gas Daily Futures, as well as to make certain typographical and similar corrections.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
In addition, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(10)
ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The changes are being proposed in order to update the Delivery Procedures in connection with the listing of the Contracts for trading on the ICE Futures Europe and ICE Endex markets. ICE Clear Europe believes that the Contracts would provide additional opportunities for interested market participants to engage in trading activity in the Permian West Texas light crude oil market and in the Austrian natural gas market. ICE Clear Europe does not believe the amendments would adversely affect competition among Clearing Members, materially affect the cost of clearing, adversely affect access to clearing in Contracts for Clearing Members or their customers, or otherwise adversely affect competition in clearing services. Accordingly, ICE Clear Europe does not believe that the amendments would impose any impact or burden on competition that is not appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of any comments received with respect to the proposed amendments.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission or advance notice 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 Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2019-026 and should be submitted on or before December 23, 2019.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 8, 2019, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
As described more fully in the Notice, the proposed rule change would define three exclusive categories of losses not related to a Clearing Participant default: (i) Investment Losses, (ii) Custodial Losses, and (iii) Non-Default Losses. With respect to the treatment of such losses, the proposed rule change would: (i) Define the resources of ICC that ICC would apply to cover each such category of losses; (ii) assign responsibility to Clearing Participants, in certain circumstances, to make contributions with respect to Investment Losses and Custodial Losses; and (iii) address the treatment of recoveries by ICC with respect to such losses. The proposed rule change would also make additional changes related to such losses, including addressing the effect the proposed rule change would have on other ICC rules.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
• Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act, which requires that that the rules of ICC provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its participants;
• Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of ICC be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
• Rule 17Ad-22(d)(3), which requires that ICC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to hold assets in a way that minimizes risk of loss or of delay in its access to them;
• Rule 17Ad-22(d)(8), which requires that ICC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to have governance arrangements that are clear and transparent to fulfill the public interest requirements in Section 17A of the Act applicable to clearing agencies, to support the objectives of owners and participants, and to promote the effectiveness of ICC's risk management procedures.
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments regarding the proposed rule change and Partial Amendment No. 1 with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposed rule change and Partial Amendment No. 1. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(D) and (F) of the Act
Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding Partial Amendment No. 1 and whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved on or before December 17, 2019. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal on or before December 23, 2019.
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 Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.37 to update the Exchange's source of data feeds from NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”) for purposes of order handling, order execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change
The Exchange proposes to update and amend the use of data feeds table in Rule 7.37, which sets forth on a market-by-market basis the specific securities information processor and proprietary data feeds that the Exchange utilizes for the handling, execution, and routing of orders, and for performing the regulatory compliance checks related to each of those functions. Specifically, the table would be amended to reflect that the Exchange will receive a direct feed from NYSE American as its primary source of data for order handling, order execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance.
Rule 7.37 currently provides that the Exchange will utilize the securities information processor (“SIP”) data feed as its primary source for the handling, execution, and routing of orders, as well as for regulatory compliance. In connection with NYSE American's elimination of its delay mechanism,
The Exchange will implement this change on the same date that NYSE American eliminates its delay mechanism, which, subject to effectiveness of proposed rule changes, will be implemented in November 2019. The Exchange will announce this date via Trader Update.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
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 change is not designed to address any competitive issue, but rather would provide the public and investors with up-to-date information about which data feeds the Exchange uses for the handling, execution, and routing of orders, as well as for regulatory compliance.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
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 Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.37-E to update the Exchange's source of data feeds from NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”) for purposes of order handling, order execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to update and amend the use of data feeds table in Rule 7.37-E, which sets forth on a market-by-market basis the specific securities information processor and proprietary data feeds that the Exchange utilizes for the handling, execution, and routing of orders, and for performing the regulatory compliance checks related to each of those functions. Specifically, the table would be amended to reflect that the Exchange will receive a direct feed from NYSE American as its primary source of data for order handling, order execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance.
Rule 7.37-E currently provides that the Exchange will utilize the securities information processor (“SIP”) data feed as its primary source for the handling, execution, and routing of orders, as well as for regulatory compliance. In connection with NYSE American's elimination of its delay mechanism,
The Exchange will implement this change on the same date that NYSE American eliminates its delay mechanism, which, subject to effectiveness of proposed rule changes, will be implemented in November 2019. The Exchange will announce this date via Trader Update.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
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 change is not designed to address any competitive issue, but rather would provide the public and investors with up-to-date information about which data feeds the Exchange uses for the handling, execution, and routing of orders, as well as for regulatory compliance.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 510, Minimum Price Variations and Minimum Trading Increments, to change the date on which the pilot program for the quoting and trading of certain options in pennies is scheduled to expire.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website 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 Exchange is a participant in an industry-wide pilot program that provides for the quoting and trading of certain option classes in penny increments (the “Penny Pilot Program” or “Program”). The Penny Pilot Program allows the quoting and trading of certain option classes in minimum increments of $0.01 for all series in such option classes with a price of less than $3.00; and in minimum increments of $0.05 for all series in such option classes with a price of $3.00 or higher. Options overlying the PowerShares QQQ
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny Pilot Program for six months, allows the Exchange to continue to participate in a program that has been viewed as beneficial to traders, investors and public customers and viewed as successful by the other options exchanges participating in it.
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. Specifically, the Exchange believes that, by extending the expiration of the Pilot Program, the proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Penny Pilot Program and a determination of how the Program should be structured in the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace, facilitating investor protection, and fostering a competitive environment. In addition, consistent with previous practices, the Exchange believes the other options exchanges will be filing similar extensions of the Penny Pilot Program.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .02 to Rule 6.72-O to extend the Penny Pilot in options classes in certain issues (“Pilot”) previously approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) through June 30, 2020. The Pilot is currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2019. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .02 to Rule 6.72-O to extend the time period of the Pilot,
This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the Pilot: All classes currently participating will remain the same and all minimum increments will remain unchanged. The Exchange believes the benefits to public customers and other market participants who will be able to express their true prices to buy and sell options have been demonstrated to outweigh the increase in quote traffic.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Pilot for six months, allows the Exchange to continue to participate in a program that
The Exchange believes that the Pilot promotes just and equitable principles of trade by enabling public customers and other market participants to express their true prices to buy and sell options to the benefit of all market participants.
The proposal to extend the Pilot is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, by allowing the Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze the impact of the Pilot while also allowing the Exchange to continue to compete for order flow with other exchanges in option issues trading as part of the Pilot.
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. Specifically, the Exchange believes that, by extending the expiration of the Pilot, the proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Pilot and a determination of how this program should be structured in the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor protection. The Pilot is an industry-wide initiative supported by all other option exchanges. The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot will allow for continued competition between Exchange market participants trading similar products as their counterparts on other exchanges, while at the same time allowing the Exchange to continue to compete for order flow with other exchanges in option issues trading as part of the Pilot.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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.
1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 4, 2019.
The meeting will be held at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matters of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.
For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
On August 8, 2019, BOX Exchange LLC (“BOX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Act of 1934 (“Act”)
BOX currently provides split-price priority for QOO Orders comprised of a single option series.
Split-price priority will not be available under certain circumstances. If the width of the quote for a strategy is $0.01 based on interest in the Complex Order Book, and both the bid and offer represent Implied Orders or Public Customer Complex Orders resting in the Complex Order Book (
The proposal also amends BOX Rule 7600(h) to allow, but not require, a Floor Broker to provide a book sweep size for Complex QOO and multi-leg QOO Orders.
BOX notes that another options exchange with a physical trading floor currently offers split-price priority for complex orders.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Under the proposal, split-price priority will be available only for Complex QOO and multi-leg QOO Orders with at least 100 contracts on each component leg of the order.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1 to 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of Amendment No. 1 in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 1, 2019, MIAX Emerald, LLC (“MIAX Emerald” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On November 20, 2019, the Exchange withdrew the proposed
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice.
On January 12, 2009, the Department of State imposed sanctions under various authorities on members of the A.Q. Khan nuclear procurement network including, BSA Tahir, a Sri Lankan national and key middleman
Applicable Date is December 2, 2019.
Rachael Jagielski, Office of Counterproliferation Initiatives, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, tel: 202-647-7594.
Designation of three Iranian entities pursuant to Executive Order 13382.
Pursuant to the authority in section 1(ii) of Executive Order 13382, “Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporter”, the State Department, in consultation with the Secretary of Treasury and the Attorney General, has determined that the Iran Space Agency, The Iran Space and Research Center, and the Astronautics Research Institute engaged, or attempted to engage, in activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a risk of materially contributing to, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery (including missiles capable of delivering such weapons), including any efforts to manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer or use such items, by any person or foreign country of proliferation concern.
The designation by the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security of the entity identified in this notice pursuant of Executive Order 13382 is effective on September 3, 2019.
Rachael Jagielski, Office of Counterproliferation Initiatives, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, tel.: 202-647-5193.
On June 28, 2005, the President, invoking the authority,
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, or that hereafter come within the United States or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) The persons listed in the Annex of the Order; (2) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and other relevant agencies, to have engaged, or attempted to engage, in activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a risk of materially contributing to, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery, including any efforts to manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer, or use such items, by any person or foreign country of proliferation concern; (3) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and other relevant agencies, to have provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, technological or other support for, or goods or services in support of, any activity or transaction described in clause (2) above or any person whose property interests in property are blocked pursuant to the Order; and (4) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and other relevant agencies, to be owned or controlled by, or acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the Order.
Information on the designee is as follows:
• The Iran Space Agency.
• Location: No. 57/2 Saie St., Vali E Asr St., Tehran Iran.
• The Iran Space Research Center.
• Location: Iran.
• Astronautics Research Institute (aka Aerospace Research Institute, aka Astronautics Systems Research Center).
• Location: P.O. Box 15875-3885, Tehran, Iran.
○ Alternative Location: 15th St., Mahestan St., Iran Zamin St., Shahrak Ghods, Tehran, 1465774111, Iran.
○ Alternative Location: Aerospace Rd., Mahestan Rd., Iran Zamin Rd., P.O. Box 14665-834, Tehran, Iran.
○ Alternative Location: Shahrak-E-Ghods, Iran Zamin St., Mahestan St., 15 Metri St.
Department of State.
Notice of meeting.
The Department of State (Department) will hold a Town Hall meeting, co-hosted by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC), on December 16, 2019, in Richland, Washington, to discuss the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty (CRT) regime.
The meeting will be held on December 16, 2019, from 5:30 p.m. to approximately 7:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time.
The meeting will be held in the Auditorium of the U.S. Federal Building, 825 Jadwin Ave., Richland, WA 99352.
Douglas D. Walker, Science and Technology Advisor, Office of Canadian Affairs,
This Town Hall is part of the Department's public engagement on the modernization of the CRT regime. The meeting is open to the public, up to the capacity of the room. Attendees are advised to bring government-issued photo ID and to allow time for security screening to enter the federal building.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of request to release airport property.
The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the release of land at the San Marcos Regional Airport under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).
Comments must be received on or before January 2, 2020.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. Ben Guttery, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Texas Airports District Office, ASW-650, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76177.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Steve Parker, Assistant City Manager, at the following address: 630 E Hopkins, San Marcos, Texas 78666.
Mr. Todd Hebert, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Texas Airports District Office, ASW-650, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177, Telephone: (817) 222-5614, email:
The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at the San Marcos Regional Airport under the provisions of the AIR 21.
The following is a brief overview of the request:
City of San Marcos requests the release of 19.16 acres of non-aeronautical airport property. The property is located on the west side of the airport, along the future development of FM 110. The property to be released will used as roadway ROW for the construction of FM 110. FM 110 will provide improved access to the airport from IH 35. Proceeds from the disposition of the property will be used for engineering and construction for a new access from FM 110 to the airport. This new access will improve accessibility to the airport. Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents relevant to the application in person at the San Marcos Regional Airport, telephone number (512) 216-6042.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Offering of U.S. Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Company Tax and Loss Bonds.
Written comments should be received on or before January 31, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for additional information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, Room #4006-A, P.O. Box 1328, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On November 22, 2019, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following person are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. AZARI JAHROMI, Mohammad Javad, Iran; DOB 16 Sep 1981; POB Jahrom, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male (individual) [IRAN] [IRAN-TRA].
Designated pursuant to section 7(a)(v) of Executive Order 13846 of August 6, 2018, 83 FR 38939, 3 CFR, 2019 Comp., p. 854, for having engaged in censorship or other activities with respect to Iran on or after June 12, 2009, that prohibit limit, or penalize the exercise of freedom of expression or assembly by citizens of Iran, or that limit access to print or broadcast media, including the facilitation or support of intentional frequency manipulation by the Government of Iran or an entity owned or controlled by the Government of Iran that would jam or restrict an international signal.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning the collection of information related to the requirements for reporting on returns regarding payments of interest.
Written comments should be received on or before January 31, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Philippe Thomas, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
• 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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the ICR for OMB approval of the extension of the information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service 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 information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8873, Extraterritorial Income Exclusion.
Written comments should be received on or before January 31, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Dr. Philippe Thomas, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Sara Covington, at (202) 317-6038, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, 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 information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 2007-12, Certification for No Information Reporting on the Sale or Exchange of a Principal Residence.
Written comments should be received on or before January 31, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Dr. Philippe Thomas, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Sara Covington, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 317-6038, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
Departmental Offices, Department of the Treasury.
Notice of reporting requirements.
By this Notice, the Department of the Treasury is informing the public that it is conducting a mandatory survey of ownership of foreign securities by U.S. residents as of December 31, 2019. This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, this survey. The reporting form SHCA (2019) and instructions may be printed from the internet at:
(b) The Department of Justice shall provide funding and administrative support as may be necessary for the performance and functions of the Task Force. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary, shall designate an official of the Department of Justice to serve as the Executive Director of the Task Force, responsible for coordinating its day-to-day functions. As necessary and appropriate, the Co-Chairs may afford the other members of the Task Force an opportunity to provide input into the decision of whom to designate as the Executive Director.
(b) In performing the functions set forth in sections 4 and 5 of this order, the Co-Chairs and members may designate representatives of their respective departments, agencies, offices, or entities under their direction to participate in the Task Force as necessary, and the Co-Chairs may also direct coordination with other Presidential task forces. In carrying out its functions, the Task Force shall coordinate with appropriate White House officials, including the Senior Counselor to the President, the Assistant
(A) improving the way law enforcement investigators and prosecutors respond to the high volume of such cases, and to the investigative challenges that might be presented in cases involving female victims;
(B) collecting and sharing data among various jurisdictions and law enforcement agencies; and
(C) better use of existing criminal databases, such as the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs), the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), and the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) including the National DNA Index System (NDIS);
(A) developing and publishing best-practices guidance for use by Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement in cases involving missing and murdered American Indians and Alaska Natives, to include best practices related to communication with affected families from initiation of an investigation through case resolution or closure;
(B) facilitating formal agreements or arrangements among Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement to promote maximally cooperative, trauma-informed responses to cases involving missing and murdered American Indians and Alaska Natives;
(C) developing and executing an education and outreach campaign for communities that are most affected by crime against American Indians and Alaska Natives to identify and reduce such crime; and
(D) developing, in partnership with NamUs, a public-awareness campaign to educate both rural and urban communities about the needs of affected families and resources that are both needed and available.
(b) No later than 2 years after the date of this order, the Task Force shall develop and submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, a final written report regarding the activities and accomplishments of the Task Force.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.