Rural Business-Cooperative Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Employment and Training Administration
Wage and Hour Division
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
United States Mint
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.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Final rule; correction.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a rule that was published in the
The correction is effective on December 18, 2019.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0128 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jill Shepherd, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1230; email:
Effective December 18, 2019, in FR Rule Doc. No. 2019-25021 at 84 FR 63565 in the issue of November 18, 2016, on page 63568, in the third column, in amendatory instruction 25 amending § 73.72, paragraph (a)(1) is corrected to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) Notify in writing by mail addressed to ATTN: Document Control Desk, Director, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, or by using any appropriate method listed in § 73.4 of this part. Classified notifications shall be sent to the NRC headquarters classified mailing address listed in appendix A to this part.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
This action extends the prohibition against certain flight operations in specified areas of the Sanaa Flight Information Region (FIR) (OYSC) by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. The FAA finds this action necessary to address the continued hazards to persons and aircraft engaged in such flight operations from the ongoing fighting and instability in Yemen, as well as terrorist and militant activity. The FAA also republishes, with minor revisions, the approval process and exemption information for this flight prohibition Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR); makes a technical correction to the SFAR to show that operations on jet route M999 are permitted; makes editorial changes to this SFAR to clarify prohibited and permitted operations; makes a minor editorial change to the title of the rule; and makes other minor revisions for consistency with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs.
This final rule is effective on December 11, 2019.
Dale E. Roberts, Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202-267-8166; email
This action extends the expiration date of SFAR No. 115, title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 91.1611, from January 7, 2020, until January 7, 2022. SFAR No. 115 prohibits certain flight operations in specified areas of the Sanaa Flight Information Region (FIR) (OYSC), the boundaries of which are set forth in paragraph (b) of this final rule, by all U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when the operator of such aircraft is a
The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the U.S. and for the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. The FAA Administrator's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and (g). Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. Section 40101(d)(1) provides that the Administrator shall consider in the public interest, among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce. Section 40105(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to exercise this authority consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government under international agreements.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701, General requirements. Under that section, the FAA is charged broadly with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
This regulation is within the scope of FAA's authority, because it continues to prohibit the persons described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, from conducting flight operations in specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC) due to the continuing hazards to the safety of U.S. civil flight operations, as described in the preamble to this final rule.
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Section 553(d) also authorizes agencies to forgo the delay in the effective date of the final rule for good cause found and published with the rule. In this instance, the FAA finds good cause exists to forgo notice and comment because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. In addition, it is contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of this SFAR.
The risk environment for U.S. civil aviation in airspace managed by other countries with respect to safety of flight risks posed by weapons capable of targeting, or otherwise negatively affecting, U.S. civil aviation, as well as other hazards to U.S. civil aviation associated with fighting, extremist/militant activity, or heightened tensions, is fluid. This fluidity and the need for the FAA to rely upon classified information in assessing these risks make seeking notice and comment impracticable and contrary to the public interest. With respect to the impracticability of notice and comment procedures, the potential for rapid changes in the risks to U.S. civil aviation significantly limits how far in advance of a new or amended flight prohibition the FAA can usefully assess the risk environment. Furthermore, to the extent that these rules and any amendments to them are based upon classified information, the FAA is not legally permitted to share such information with the general public, who cannot meaningfully comment on information to which they are not legally allowed access.
Under these conditions, public interest considerations also favor not seeking notice and comment for these rules and any amendments to them. While there is a public interest in having an opportunity for the public to comment on agency action, there is a greater public interest in having the FAA's flight prohibitions, and any amendments thereto, reflect the agency's most current understanding of the risk environment for U.S. civil aviation. This allows the FAA to appropriately protect the safety of U.S. operators' aircraft and the lives of their passengers and crews without over-restricting U.S. operators' routing options. The FAA has identified an ongoing need to maintain the flight prohibition for U.S. civil aviation operations in specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC) due to continued safety-of-flight hazards associated with ongoing political instability, fighting involving various militia/extremist/militant elements, and military activity by foreign sponsors supporting various elements operating in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC). These hazards, which are further described in the preamble to this rule, require that the FAA's flight prohibition for U.S. civil aviation operations in specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC) continue without interruption.
Because the final rule makes no changes to the boundaries of an existing FAA flight prohibition for U.S. civil aviation operations, it is also contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of the rule. Delaying the effective date would not change the compliance obligations of U.S. operators and airmen up to January 7, 2020, and, depending upon the date on which the final rule is published in the
For these reasons, the FAA finds good cause exists to forgo notice and comment and any delay in the effective date for this rule.
On January 7, 2016, the FAA published SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, to prohibit U.S. civil aviation operations in specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC), due to the hazardous situation faced by U.S. civil aviation from ongoing military operations, political instability, violence from competing armed groups, and the continuing terrorism threat from extremist elements associated with the fighting and instability in Yemen.
In taking that action, the FAA determined international civil air routes that transited the then-specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC) and aircraft operating to and from Yemeni airports were at risk from terrorist and militant groups potentially employing anti-aircraft-capable weapons, including man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), small-arms fire, and indirect fire from mortars and rockets. Due to the fighting and instability, as of January 2016, the FAA stated that there was a risk of possible loss of state control over more advanced anti-aircraft-capable weapons to terrorist and militant groups. Some of the weapons that the FAA was concerned about have the capability to target aircraft at higher altitudes or during approach and departure and have weapon ranges that
In the January 2016 final rule, the FAA also indicated that U.S. civil aviation was at risk from combat operations and other military-related activity associated with the fighting and instability and that there was an ongoing threat of terrorism. Al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) remained active in Yemen and had demonstrated the capability and intent to target U.S. and Western aviation interests. Various Yemeni airports had been attacked during the fighting, including Sanaa International Airport (OYSN) and Aden International Airport (OYAA), resulting in instances of damage to airport facilities and temporary closure of the airports.
In December 2017, the FAA amended SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, to shrink the boundaries of its prohibition of U.S. civil aviation operations in specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC).
The FAA continues to assess the situation in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC) as being hazardous for U.S. civil aviation. Significant risk to U.S. civil aviation operations in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC) continues to exist due to the ongoing conflict between the Saudi Arabia-led coalition and Huthi-aligned forces, as well as an enduring extremist/militant threat to U.S. civil aviation operations in those areas. During the conflict, there have been multiple reported surface-to-air incidents, including successful shoot downs of military tactical and surveillance aircraft by Huthi forces armed with a variety of anti-aircraft-capable weapons. Huthi elements, with international assistance, have received or developed, and successfully employed, innovative anti-aircraft-capable weapons, ballistic missiles and unmanned aircraft systems capabilities. These capabilities present a risk to U.S. civil aviation, which may be deliberately or inadvertently targeted while operating in the Sanaa FIR (OYSC). Airports within the Sanaa FIR (OYSC) have been attacked by various entities using multiple capabilities. Additionally, extremist/militant elements continue to exploit the conflict for control of territory to launch attacks. Both Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and extremists aligned with the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (ISIS) operate in Yemen. Both AQAP and ISIS have previously conducted attacks on U.S. interests, including targeting civil aviation.
The FAA continues to assess that opposition elements in Yemen do not possess functional medium-/long-range strategic SAM capabilities or control territory from which surface-to-air weapons possessed by those opposition forces are capable of reaching air routes off the southern and western coasts of Yemen. Therefore, the FAA maintains without change the boundaries of its prohibition on U.S. civil aviation operations in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC). Operations on jet routes UT702 and M999 continue to be permitted.
Therefore, as a result of the significant continuing risks to the safety of U.S. civil aviation in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC), the FAA extends the expiration date of SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, from January 7, 2020 until January 7, 2022. By this action, the FAA prohibits flight operations in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC) at all altitudes by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. While the FAA's flight prohibition does not apply to foreign air carriers, DOT codeshare authorizations prohibit foreign air carriers from carrying a U.S. codeshare partner's code on a flight segment that operates in airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition.
The FAA will continue to actively monitor the situation and evaluate the extent to which U.S. civil operators and airmen may be able to operate safely in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC). Amendments to SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, may be appropriate if the risk to aviation safety and security changes. The FAA may amend or rescind SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, as necessary, prior to its expiration date.
By this action, the FAA also makes minor editorial changes to correct the formatting of the name of the FIR; clarify the operations that are prohibited and those that are permitted; and clarify the procedures for considering approval and exemption requests. These changes are consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs. The FAA is also republishing the details concerning the approval and exemption processes in Sections V and VI of this preamble, so that interested persons will be able to refer to this final rule for comprehensive information about requesting relief from the FAA from the provisions of SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611. Finally, the FAA makes a technical correction to the final rule to clarify that operations on jet route M999 are permitted.
In some instances, U.S. Government departments, agencies, or instrumentalities may need to engage U.S. civil aviation to support their activities in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC). The FAA is clarifying the approval process for SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs, as previously indicated. If a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government determines that it has a critical need to engage any person described in SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, including a U.S. air carrier or commercial operator, to conduct a charter to transport civilian or military passengers or cargo, or other operations, in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC), that department, agency, or instrumentality may request the FAA to approve persons described in SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, to conduct such operations.
An approval request must be made directly by the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government to the FAA's Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety in a letter signed by an appropriate senior official of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality. The FAA will not accept or consider requests for
The letter must be sent to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. Electronic submissions are acceptable, and the requesting entity may request that the FAA notify it electronically as to whether the approval request is granted. If a requestor wishes to make an electronic submission to the FAA, the requestor should contact the Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, at (202) 267-8166, to obtain the appropriate email address. A single letter may request approval from the FAA for multiple persons described in SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, or for multiple flight operations. To the extent known, the letter must identify the person(s) expected to be covered under the SFAR on whose behalf the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality is seeking FAA approval, and it must describe—
• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the mission being supported;
• The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the SFAR;
• To the extent known, the specific locations in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC) where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC) and the airports, airfields or landing zones at which the aircraft will take off and land; and
• The method by which the department, agency, or instrumentality will provide, or how the operator will otherwise obtain, current threat information and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of the proposed operations (
The request for approval must also include a list of operators with whom the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality requesting FAA approval has a current contract(s), grant(s), or cooperative agreement(s) (or its prime contractor has a subcontract(s)) for specific flight operations in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC). The requestor may identify additional operators to the FAA at any time after the FAA approval is issued. However, all additional operators must be identified to, and obtain an Operations Specification (OpSpec) or Letter of Authorization (LOA) from, the FAA, as appropriate, for operations in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC), before such operators commence such operations. The approval conditions discussed below apply to any such additional operators. Updated lists should be sent to the email address to be obtained from the Air Transportation Division by calling (202) 267-8166.
If an approval request includes classified information, requestors may contact Aviation Safety Inspector Dale E. Roberts for instructions on submitting it to the FAA. His contact information is listed in the For Further Information Contact section of this final rule.
FAA approval of an operation under SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, does not relieve persons subject to this SFAR of their responsibility to comply with all other applicable FAA rules and regulations. Operators of civil aircraft must comply with the conditions of their certificate, OpSpecs, and LOAs, as applicable. Operators must also comply with all rules and regulations of other U.S. Government departments or agencies that may apply to the proposed operation(s), including, but not limited to, regulations issued by the Transportation Security Administration.
If the FAA approves the request, the FAA's Aviation Safety Organization will send an approval letter to the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality, informing it that the FAA's approval is subject to all of the following conditions:
(1) The approval will stipulate those procedures and conditions that limit, to the greatest degree possible, the risk to the operator, while still allowing the operator to achieve its operational objectives.
(2) Before any approval takes effect, the operator must submit to the FAA:
(a) A written release of the U.S. Government from all damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising out of or related to the approved operations in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC); and
(b) The operator's written agreement to indemnify the U.S. Government with respect to any and all third-party damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising from or related to the approved operations in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC).
(3) Other conditions that the FAA may specify, including those that may be imposed in OpSpecs or LOAs, as applicable.
The release and agreement to indemnify do not preclude an operator from raising a claim under an applicable non-premium war risk insurance policy issued by the FAA under chapter 443 of title 49, U.S. Code.
If the FAA approves the proposed operation(s), the FAA will issue an OpSpec or LOA, as applicable, to the operator(s) identified in the original request authorizing them to conduct the approved operation(s), and will notify the department, agency, or instrumentality that requested the FAA's approval of any additional conditions beyond those contained in the approval letter.
Any operations not conducted under an approval the FAA issues through the approval process set forth previously must be conducted under an exemption from SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611. A petition for exemption must comply with 14 CFR part 11. The FAA will consider whether exceptional circumstances exist beyond those contemplated by the approval process described in the previous section. In addition to the information required by 14 CFR 11.81, at a minimum, the requestor must describe in its submission to the FAA—
• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the operation;
• The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the SFAR;
• The specific locations in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC) where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC) and the airports, airfields or landing zones at which the aircraft will take off and land;
• The method by which the operator will obtain current threat information, and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of its proposed operations (
• The plans and procedures the operator will use to minimize the risks, identified in this preamble, to the proposed operations, to establish that granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety or would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by this SFAR. The FAA has found comprehensive, organized plans and procedures of this nature to be helpful in facilitating the agency's safety evaluation of petitions for exemption from flight prohibition SFARs.
Additionally, the release and agreement to indemnify, as referred to previously, are required as a condition of any exemption that may be issued under SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611.
The FAA recognizes that the operations SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, might affect could include operations planned for the governments of other countries with the support of the U.S. Government. While the FAA will not permit these operations through the approval process, the FAA will consider exemption requests for such operations on an expedited basis and prior to any private exemption requests.
If a petition for exemption includes security-sensitive or proprietary information, requestors may contact Aviation Safety Inspector Dale E. Roberts for instructions on submitting it to the FAA. His contact information is listed in the
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this final rule has benefits that justify its costs. This rule is a significant regulatory action, as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as it raises novel policy issues contemplated under that Executive Order. As notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required for this final rule, the regulatory flexibility analyses described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 regarding impacts on small entities are not required. This rule will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, by exceeding the threshold identified previously.
Due to the significant hazards to U.S. civil aviation described in the preamble of this final rule, this rule continues to prohibit U.S. civil flights in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC). The FAA believes there are very few U.S. operators who wish to operate in the specified areas of the Sanaa (OYSC) FIR where U.S. civil aviation operations will continue to be prohibited. The FAA receives few requests for approval or petitions for exemption to conduct flight operations in airspace managed by other countries in which the FAA has prohibited U.S. civil aviation from flying and expects that this pattern will hold true for this rule.
In addition, the rule continues to allow U.S. civil aviation to use the M999 and UT702 air routes, so flight times and operating expenses, such as fuel, for U.S. operators that transit the Middle East on those routes are not affected by this final rule.
Therefore, the FAA finds that the costs of extending SFAR No. 115, § 91.1611, will be minimal and are exceeded by the benefits of avoided risks of deaths, injuries, and property damage that could result from a U.S. operator's aircraft being shot down (or otherwise damaged) while operating in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), in 5 U.S.C. 603, requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing impacts on small entities whenever an agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 604 requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when an agency issues a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. The FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment and any delay in the effective date for this rule. As notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required in this situation, the regulatory flexibility analyses described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 are similarly not required.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil aviation from hazards to their operations in the specified areas of the Sanaa FIR (OYSC), a location outside the U.S. Therefore, the rule is in compliance with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 million.
This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA's policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to this regulation. The FAA finds that this action is fully consistent with the obligations under 49 U.S.C. 40105(b)(1)(A) to ensure that the FAA exercises its duties consistently with the obligations of the United States under international agreements.
While the FAA's flight prohibition does not apply to foreign air carriers, DOT codeshare authorizations prohibit foreign air carriers from carrying a U.S. codeshare partner's code on a flight segment that operates in airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition. In addition, foreign air carriers and other foreign operators may choose to avoid, or be advised or directed by their civil aviation authorities to avoid, airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition.
The FAA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions (44 FR 1957, January 4, 1979), and DOT Order 5610.1C, Paragraph 16. Executive Order 12114 requires the FAA to be informed of environmental considerations and take those considerations into account when making decisions on major Federal actions that could have environmental impacts anywhere beyond the borders of the United States. The FAA has determined that this action is exempt pursuant to Section 2-5(a)(i) of Executive Order 12114 because it does not have the potential for a significant effect on the environment outside the United States.
In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 8-6(c), FAA has prepared a memorandum for the record stating the reason(s) for this determination; this memorandum has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.
The FAA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609 and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
This rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, Feb. 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to a national security function of the United States.
An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained from the internet by—
• Searching the docket for this rulemaking at
• Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at
• Accessing the Government Publishing Office's website at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by amendment or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677.
Except for classified material, all documents the FAA considered in developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the internet through the docket for this rulemaking.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121) (set forth as a note to 5 U.S.C. 601) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the persons listed under the
Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Freight, Yemen.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).
(a)
(1) All U.S. air carriers and U.S. commercial operators;
(2) All persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and
(3) All operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier.
(b)
(c)
(1) Flight operations may be conducted in the Sanaa FIR (OYSC) in that airspace east of a line drawn direct from KAPET (163322N 0530614E) to NODMA (152603N 0533359E), southeast of a line drawn direct from NODMA to ORBAT (140638N 0503924E) then from ORBAT to PAKER (115500N 0463500E), south of a line drawn direct from PAKER to PARIM (123142N 0432712E), and west of a line drawn direct from PARIM to RIBOK (154700N 0415230E). Use of jet routes UT702 and M999 are authorized. All flight operations conducted under this subparagraph must be conducted subject to the approval of, and in accordance with the conditions established by, the appropriate authorities of Yemen.
(2) Flight operations may be conducted in the Sanaa FIR (OYSC) in that airspace west of a line drawn direct from KAPET (163322N 0530614E) to NODMA (152603N 0533359E), northwest of a line drawn direct from NODMA to ORBAT (140638N 0503924E) then from ORBAT to PAKER (115500N 0463500E), north of a line drawn direct from PAKER to PARIM (123142N 0432712E), and east of a line drawn direct from PARIM to RIBOK (154700N 0415230E) if such flight operations are conducted under a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement with a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government (or under a subcontract between the prime contractor of the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality and the person subject to paragraph (a)), with the approval of the FAA, or under an exemption issued by the FAA. The FAA will consider requests for approval or exemption in a timely manner, with the order of preference being: First, for those operations in support of U.S. Government-sponsored activities; second, for those operations in support of government-sponsored activities of a foreign country with the support of a U.S. government department, agency, or instrumentality; and third, for all other operations.
(d)
(e)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
This action extends the prohibition against certain flight operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below Flight Level (FL) 260 by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. The FAA is taking this action because it has determined there continues to be an unacceptable risk to U.S. civil aviation operating in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 from terrorist and militant activity. The FAA also republishes, with minor revisions, the approval process and exemption information for this flight prohibition Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) and makes minor editorial changes to this SFAR to clarify prohibited and permitted operations, consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs.
This final rule is effective on December 11, 2019.
Dale E. Roberts, Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
This action extends the expiration date of SFAR No. 107, title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 91.1613, from January 7, 2020 until January 7, 2023. SFAR No. 107 prohibits certain flight operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. Consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARS, this action also republishes, with minor revisions, the approval process and exemption information for this SFAR and makes minor editorial changes to clarify prohibited and permitted operations.
The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the U.S. and for the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. The FAA Administrator's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and (g). Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. Section 40101(d)(1) provides that the Administrator shall consider in the public interest, among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce. Section 40105(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to exercise this authority consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government under international agreements.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701, General requirements. Under that section, the FAA is charged broadly with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
This regulation is within the scope of FAA's authority because it continues to prohibit the persons described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, from conducting flight operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 due to the continuing hazards to the safety of U.S. civil flight operations at those altitudes, as described in the preamble to this final rule.
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Section 553(d) also authorizes agencies to forgo the delay in the effective date of the final rule for good cause found and published with the rule. In this instance, the FAA finds good cause exists to forgo notice and comment because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. In addition, it is contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of this flight prohibition SFAR.
The risk environment for U.S. civil aviation in airspace managed by other countries with respect to safety of flight risks posed by weapons capable of targeting, or otherwise negatively affecting, U.S. civil aviation, as well as other hazards to U.S. civil aviation associated with fighting, extremist/militant activity, or heightened tensions, is fluid. This fluidity and the need for the FAA to rely upon classified information in assessing these risks make seeking notice and comment impracticable and contrary to the public interest. With respect to the impracticability of notice and comment procedures, the potential for rapid changes in the risks to U.S. civil aviation significantly limits how far in advance of a new or amended flight prohibition the FAA can usefully assess the risk environment. Furthermore, to the extent these rules and any amendments to them are based upon classified information, the FAA is not legally permitted to share such information with the general public, who cannot meaningfully comment on information to which they are not legally allowed access.
Under these conditions, public interest considerations also favor not seeking notice and comment for these rules and any amendments to them. While there is a public interest in having an opportunity for the public to comment on agency action, there is a greater public interest in having the FAA's flight prohibitions, and any amendments thereto, reflect the agency's most current understanding of the risk environment for U.S. civil aviation. This allows the FAA to appropriately protect the safety of U.S. operators' aircraft and the lives of their passengers and crews without over-restricting U.S. operators' routing options. The FAA has identified an ongoing need to maintain the flight prohibition for U.S. civil aviation operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 due to continued safety-of-flight hazards associated with terrorist and militant activity. These hazards, which are further described in the preamble to this final rule, require that the FAA's flight prohibition for U.S. civil aviation operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 continue without interruption.
Because the final rule makes no changes to the boundaries of an existing FAA flight prohibition for U.S. civil aviation operations, it is also contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of the rule. Delaying the effective date would not change the compliance obligations of U.S. operators and airmen up to January 7, 2020, and, depending upon the date on which the final rule is published in the
For these reasons, the FAA finds good cause exists to forgo notice and comment and any delay in the effective date for this rule.
The FAA first issued SFAR No. 107 in 2007, based on aviation safety and national security concerns regarding U.S. civil flight operations in Somalia, as well as overflights of Somalia below FL200.
On January 7, 2016, the FAA expanded its existing prohibition of U.S. civil aviation operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia, after determining the risk from terrorist and militant activity made it unsafe for U.S. civil flights to operate in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260.
In December 2017, the FAA, again, extended the expiration date of SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, until January 7, 2020, due to continuing hazards to U.S. civil flight operation in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260. In the December 2017 final rule,
The FAA continues to assess the situation in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 as being hazardous for U.S. civil aviation operations due to the poor security environment and fragile governance structure in Somalia, as well as the threat posed by al-Shabaab, an al-Qa'ida-aligned extremist group, and other extremists/militants. Al-Shabaab has demonstrated an intent and capabilities to target civil aviation operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia through a variety of means, including the use of an insider to smuggle a concealed IED onto a civil aircraft, use of anti-aircraft-capable weapons, and direct and indirect attacks on Somali airports. Al-Shabaab has frequently targeted Aden Adde International Airport (HCMM) with attacks using indirect fire, small arms fire and vehicle-borne IEDs. Al-Shabaab has conducted multiple mortar attacks targeting the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) at Aden Adde International Airport (HCMM), and has done so as recently as January 1, 2019. Al-Shabaab frequently conducts vehicle-borne IED attacks targeting Western interests and public venues in Mogadishu, including detonating vehicle-borne IEDs near malls (February 2019), hotels (November 2018) and near a security check point close to Aden Adde International Airport (HCMM) (June 2019). In addition, al-Shabaab is assessed to have access to anti-aircraft-capable weapons presenting a risk to U.S. civil aviation operations at altitudes below FL260. Furthermore, ISIS has a cell trying to gain influence in Somalia, which presents another extremist threat to Western interests, including civil aviation. ISIS elements in Somalia may have access to anti-aircraft-capable weapons.
In February 2019, AMISOM began to draw down its forces, as its mandate expires in 2020, and began transferring security responsibilities back to Somalia. During the AMISOM drawdown, al-Shabaab may attempt to exploit vulnerabilities in Somali security and increase attacks on remaining AMISOM bases and Western interests. For these reasons, the FAA is concerned the risk to U.S. civil aviation operations may increase as AMISOM continues its scheduled drawdown.
Therefore, as a result of the significant continuing risks to the safety of U.S. civil aviation in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260, the FAA extends the expiration date of SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, from January 7, 2020 until January 7, 2023. By this action, the FAA prohibits flight operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. While the FAA's flight prohibition does not apply to foreign air carriers, DOT codeshare authorizations prohibit foreign air carriers from carrying a U.S. codeshare partner's code on a flight segment that operates in airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition.
The FAA will continue to actively monitor the situation and evaluate the extent to which U.S. civil operators and airmen may be able to operate safely in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260. Amendments to SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, may be appropriate if the risk to aviation safety and security changes. The FAA may amend or rescind SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, as necessary, prior to its expiration date.
By this action, the FAA also makes minor editorial changes to clarify the operations that are prohibited and those that are permitted and clarify the procedure for considering approval and exemption requests. These changes are consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs. The FAA also republishes the approval and exemption processes in Sections V and VI of this preamble, so interested persons will be able to refer to this final rule for comprehensive information about requesting relief from the FAA from the provisions of SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613.
In some instances, U.S. Government departments, agencies, or instrumentalities may need to engage U.S. civil aviation to support their activities in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260. The FAA is clarifying the approval process for SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs, as previously indicated. If a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government determines it has a critical need to engage any person described in SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, including a U.S. air carrier or commercial operator, to conduct a charter to transport civilian or military passengers or cargo, or other operations, in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260, that department, agency, or instrumentality may request the FAA to approve persons described in SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, to conduct such operations.
An approval request must be made directly by the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government to the FAA's Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety in a letter signed by an appropriate senior official of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality. The FAA will not accept or consider requests for approval from anyone other than the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality. In addition, the senior official signing the letter requesting FAA approval on behalf of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality must be sufficiently positioned within the organization to demonstrate the senior leadership of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality supports the request for approval and is committed to taking all necessary steps to minimize operational risks to the proposed flights. The senior official must also be in a position to: (1) Attest to the accuracy of all representations made to the FAA in the request for approval and (2) ensure any support from the requesting U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality described in the request for approval is in fact brought to bear and is maintained over time. Unless justified by exigent circumstances, requests for approval must be submitted to the FAA no less than 30 calendar days before the date on which the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality wishes the proposed operations to commence.
The letter must be sent to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. Electronic submissions are acceptable, and the requesting entity may request the FAA notify it electronically as to whether the approval request is granted. If a requestor wishes to make an electronic submission to the FAA, the requestor should contact the Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, at (202) 267-8166, to obtain the appropriate email address. A single letter may request approval from the FAA for multiple persons described in SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, or for multiple flight operations. To the extent known, the letter must identify the person(s) expected to be covered under the SFAR on whose behalf the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality is seeking FAA approval, and it must describe—
• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the mission being supported;
• The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the SFAR;
• To the extent known, the specific locations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 and the airports, airfields or landing zones at which the aircraft will take off and land; and
• The method by which the department, agency, or instrumentality will provide, or how the operator will otherwise obtain, current threat information and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of the proposed operations (
The request for approval must also include a list of operators with whom the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality requesting FAA approval has a current contract(s), grant(s), or cooperative agreement(s) (or its prime contractor has a subcontract(s)) for specific flight operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260. The requestor may identify additional operators to the FAA at any time after the FAA approval is issued. However, all additional operators must be identified to, and obtain an Operations Specification (OpSpec) or Letter of Authorization (LOA) from, the FAA, as appropriate, for operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260, before such operators commence such operations. The approval conditions discussed below apply to any such additional operators. Updated lists should be sent to the email address to be obtained from the Air Transportation Division by calling (202) 267-8166.
If an approval request includes classified information, requestors may contact Aviation Safety Inspector Dale E. Roberts for instructions on submitting it to the FAA. His contact information is listed in the For Further Information Contact section of this final rule.
FAA approval of an operation under SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, does not relieve persons subject to this SFAR of their responsibility to comply with all other applicable FAA rules and regulations. Operators of civil aircraft must comply with the conditions of their certificate, OpSpecs, and LOAs, as applicable. Operators must also comply with all rules and regulations of other U.S. Government departments or agencies that may apply to the proposed operation(s), including, but not limited to, regulations issued by the Transportation Security Administration.
If the FAA approves the request, the FAA's Aviation Safety Organization will send an approval letter to the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality, informing it that the FAA's approval is subject to all of the following conditions:
(1) The approval will stipulate those procedures and conditions that limit, to the greatest degree possible, the risk to the operator, while still allowing the operator to achieve its operational objectives.
(2) Before any approval takes effect, the operator must submit to the FAA:
(a) A written release of the U.S. Government from all damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising out of or related to the approved operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260; and
(b) The operator's written agreement to indemnify the U.S. Government with respect to any and all third-party damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising from or related to the approved operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260.
(3) Other conditions the FAA may specify, including those that may be imposed in OpSpecs or LOAs, as applicable.
The release and agreement to indemnify do not preclude an operator from raising a claim under an applicable non-premium war risk insurance policy issued by the FAA under chapter 443 of title 49, U.S. Code.
If the FAA approves the proposed operation(s), the FAA will issue an OpSpec or LOA, as applicable, to the operator(s) identified in the original request authorizing them to conduct the approved operation(s), and will notify the department, agency, or instrumentality that requested the FAA's approval of any additional conditions beyond those contained in the approval letter.
Any operations not conducted under an approval the FAA issues through the approval process set forth previously must be conducted under an exemption from SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613. A petition for exemption must comply with 14 CFR part 11. The FAA will consider whether exceptional circumstances exist beyond those contemplated by the approval process described in the previous section. In addition to the information required by 14 CFR 11.81, at a minimum, the requestor must describe in its submission to the FAA—
• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the operation;
• The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the SFAR;
• The specific locations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 and the airports, airfields or landing zones at which the aircraft will take off and land;
• The method by which the operator will obtain current threat information, and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of its proposed operations (
• The plans and procedures the operator will use to minimize the risks, identified in this preamble, to the proposed operations, to establish that granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety or would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by this SFAR. The FAA has found comprehensive, organized plans and procedures of this nature to be helpful in facilitating the agency's safety evaluation of petitions for exemption from flight prohibition SFARs.
Additionally, the release and agreement to indemnify, as referred to previously, are required as a condition of any exemption that may be issued under SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613.
The FAA recognizes that the operations that SFAR No. 107, § 91.1613, might affect could include operations planned for the governments of other countries with the support of the U.S. Government. While the FAA will not permit these operations through the approval process, the FAA will consider exemption requests for such operations on an expedited basis and prior to any private exemption requests.
If a petition for exemption includes security-sensitive or proprietary information, requestors may contact Aviation Safety Inspector Dale E. Roberts for instructions on submitting it to the FAA. His contact information is listed in the
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this final rule has benefits that justify its costs. This rule is a significant regulatory action, as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as it raises novel policy issues contemplated under that Executive Order. As notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required for this final rule, the regulatory flexibility analyses described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 regarding impacts on small entities are not required. This rule will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, by exceeding the threshold identified previously.
Due to the significant hazards to U.S. civil aviation described in the preamble of this rule, this rule continues to prohibit U.S. civil flights in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260. The FAA believes there are very few U.S. operators who wish to overfly Somalia at altitudes below FL260 or operate to, from, or within Somalia due to the hazards to U.S. civil aviation described in the preamble to this final rule. The FAA receives few requests for approval or petitions for exemption to conduct flight operations in airspace managed by other countries in which the FAA has prohibited U.S. civil aviation from flying and expects that this pattern will hold true for this rule.
Consequently, the FAA estimates the costs of this rule to be minimal. These minimal costs are exceeded by the benefits of avoided deaths, injuries, and property damage that could result from a U.S. operator's aircraft being shot down (or otherwise damaged) while operating in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), in 5 U.S.C. 603, requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing impacts on small entities whenever an agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 604 requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when an agency issues a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. The FAA found good cause to forgo notice
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil aviation from hazards to their operations in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL 260, a location outside the U.S. Therefore, the rule is in compliance with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 million.
This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA's policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to this regulation. The FAA finds that this action is fully consistent with the obligations under 49 U.S.C. 40105(b)(1)(A) to ensure that the FAA exercises its duties consistently with the obligations of the United States under international agreements.
While the FAA's flight prohibition does not apply to foreign air carriers, DOT codeshare authorizations prohibit foreign air carriers from carrying a U.S. codeshare partner's code on a flight segment that operates in airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition. In addition, foreign air carriers and other foreign operators may choose to avoid, or be advised or directed by their civil aviation authorities to avoid, airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition.
The FAA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions (44 FR 1957, January 4, 1979), and DOT Order 5610.1C, Paragraph 16. Executive Order 12114 requires the FAA to be informed of environmental considerations and take those considerations into account when making decisions on major Federal actions that could have environmental impacts anywhere beyond the borders of the United States. The FAA has determined that this action is exempt pursuant to Section 2-5(a)(i) of Executive Order 12114 because it does not have the potential for a significant effect on the environment outside the United States.
In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 8-6(c), FAA has prepared a memorandum for the record stating the reason(s) for this determination; this memorandum has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.
The FAA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609 and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
This rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, Feb. 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to a national security function of the United States.
An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained from the internet by—
• Searching the docket for this rulemaking at
• Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at
• Accessing the Government Publishing Office's website at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by amendment or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation
Except for classified material, all documents the FAA considered in developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the internet through the docket for this rulemaking.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121) (set forth as a note to 5 U.S.C. 601) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the persons listed under the
Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Freight, Somalia.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).
(a) * * *
(3) All operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier.
(b)
(c)
(1) Overflights of Somalia may be conducted at or above FL260 subject to the approval of, and in accordance with the conditions established by, the appropriate authorities of Somalia.
(2) Flight operations may be conducted in the territory and airspace of Somalia at altitudes below FL260 if such flight operations are conducted under a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement with a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government (or under a subcontract between the prime contractor of the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality and the person described in paragraph (a) of this section) with the approval of the FAA or under an exemption issued by the FAA. The FAA will consider requests for approval or exemption in a timely manner, with the order of preference being: First, for those operations in support of U.S. Government-sponsored activities; second, for those operations in support of government-sponsored activities of a foreign country with the support of a U.S. government department, agency, or instrumentality; and third, for all other operations.
(e)
Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
On February 6, 2019, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking requesting comment on proposed exemptions from the Privacy Act's requirement that individuals have access to certain records maintained within a system of records for the Department's Aviation Consumer Complaint Application Online System. This exemption is necessary to avoid disclosure of aviation compliance inquiry techniques, confidential information provided by air carriers and third parties, and prevent unwarranted invasions of individual privacy. This exemption also supports the Department's ability to obtain information relevant to resolving concerns related to an air carrier's compliance with the Department's consumer protection and civil rights requirements. The Department received two comments on this proposed rule. Upon consideration of the comments, the Department will finalize the proposed rule without change.
This final rule is effective December 11, 2019.
You may access docket number DOT-OST-2016-0028 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Claire Barrett, Departmental Chief Privacy Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 or
DOT identifies a system of records that is exempt from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act (pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) or (k)) both in the system of records notice published in the
DOT received two comments on the proposal. These comments were submitted by law students. One commenter, commenting anonymously, stated that she was commenting for a class assignment. While the commenter stated that he or she did not feel qualified to comment, the commenter expressed concern that the Department is tracking individuals who issue complaints against airlines. The commenter also asks that the Department ensure that any person who submits a complaint have access to the file in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act.
DOT's Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings monitors compliance with and investigates violations of Federal law and regulations related to aviation economic, consumer protection, and civil rights requirements. The Aviation Consumer Protection Division is housed within this Office and is tasked with receiving complaints from the public regarding air carrier consumer issues, including complaints of unlawful discriminatory treatment in air travel by airline employees or contractors, and verifying air carriers' compliance with aviation consumer protection requirements. DOT maintains information about individuals who submit complaints so that DOT can appropriately address the complaint, including working with the complainant and air carrier to resolve the issue identified in the complaint and to follow up with the complainant for additional information or to inform the complainant of DOT's analysis of the issue. DOT does not “track” persons who issue complaints against airlines, but rather, uses information about the complainant to assist the complainant to resolve the complaint. Individuals who wish to complain, but are not seeking DOT assistance to address their complaint with the air carrier, may submit complaints anonymously. As the commentator noted, individuals may file a request under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain access to information about them that is maintained in this system of records.
The second comment is from two law students, who also wrote to express concern with the proposed rule. These students stated that they are concerned that the proposed exemption from the Privacy Act's access requirement creates an impediment to potential litigants right to discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that DOT's discretion to disclose information notwithstanding the Privacy Act exemption does not assuage their concern. The commenters state further that the rule does not serve DOT's interest in supporting DOT's ability to conduct investigations, and undermines the public's right of access to information. The commenters are concerned that the proposal would preclude individuals from being informed consumers by shielding from the public information about patterns of impermissible behavior by airlines.
The Privacy Act, among other things, requires that Federal agencies provide individuals with access to information about themselves that is maintained by the agency in a system of records. Individuals who request information about themselves maintained in a system of records are sometimes referred to as “first party requesters.” Under the Privacy Act, a system of records is information about an individual that includes that individuals name or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a photograph, that is retrieved by the agency by that individual's name or other identifier assigned to the individual.
The Aviation Consumer Complaint Application Online System is a system of records that consists primarily of information provided by the individual who submitted a complaint. It also includes information provided by the air carrier identified in the consumer complaint that is provided to DOT as part of DOT's efforts to help assess and resolve the consumer complaint. In the course of responding to a consumer complaint, air carriers sometimes provide DOT with information that can include identifying information about the air carrier's employees and third parties, or confidential business information. Air carriers provide this information to the DOT voluntarily, and it aids DOT's efforts to resolve particular consumer complaints. If DOT could not protect from a first party requester the identities of third parties or an air carrier's confidential business information provided by an air carrier in the course of responding to a complaint, it would impair DOT's ability to adequately assess and respond to a consumer complaint on behalf of the consumer. Notwithstanding the proposed exemption from the Privacy Act, first party requesters are still entitled to information maintained in this system of records to the full extent required by the Freedom of Information Act. With respect to the commenter's concern about discovery for litigation purposes, this proposed exemption does not limit a private litigant's ability to seek discovery directly from an air carrier. Nor does it restrict access to information from this system, or other agency records that are not part of this system of records, under the Freedom of Information Act. This exemption also does not restrict access that is otherwise provided for under the Privacy Act, which includes disclosures pursuant to court order.
The commenters express particular concern about information demonstrating a pattern of unlawful conduct by an air carrier. The Department agrees that this is valuable information for consumers and publishes information about consumer complaints and other airline compliance requirements, such as flight delays; mishandled baggage, wheelchairs, and scooters; oversales; reports of lost, injured or death of animals in air transportation; and customer service reports to the Transportation Security Administration, on its website at
After consideration of the comments, the Department will finalize the proposed rule without change. This rule is necessary to protect the identity of confidential informants and confidential business information provided by air carriers, and protect the DOT's investigatory techniques. DOT will continue to provide individuals with access to information maintained in this system under the Freedom of Information Act, and under the Privacy Act, except to the extent that disclosure would reveal confidential informants, confidential business information, or reveal DOT's investigatory techniques.
DOT considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (January 18, 2011, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”), and DOT Order 2100.6, “Policies and Procedures for Rulemakings.” DOT has determined that this action will not constitute a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rulemaking will not result in any costs. Since these records would be exempt from certain provisions of the Privacy Act, DOT would not have to expend any funds in order to administer those aspects of the Act.
DOT has evaluated the effect these changes will have on small entities and does not believe that this rulemaking will impose any costs on small entities because the reporting requirements themselves are not changed and because the rule applies only to information on individuals that is maintained by the Federal Government or that is already publicly available. Therefore, I hereby certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
DOT has analyzed the environmental impacts of this final action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, Federalism, dated August 4, 1999, and it has been determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect on, or sufficient Federalism implications for, the States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Therefore, the preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not necessary.
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because it would not have any effect Indian Tribal Governments, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501,
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, March 22, 1995) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of certain regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. The UMRA requires a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives for proposed and final rules that contain Federal mandates. A “Federal mandate” is a new or additional enforceable duty, imposed on any State, local, or tribal Government; or the private sector. If any Federal mandate causes those entities to spend, in aggregate, $143.1 million or more in any one year (adjusted for inflation), an UMRA analysis is required. This final rule does not impose Federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal governments; or the private sector.
This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Penalties, Privacy.
In consideration of the foregoing, DOT amends part 10 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552a; 49 U.S.C. 322.
H. The following systems of records are exempt from subsection (d) (Access to Records) of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, to the extent that they contain investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2):
1. Aviation Consumer Complaint Appropriation System, maintained by the Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings in the Office of the Secretary (DOT/OST 102).
This exemption is justified because granting an individual access to investigatory records could interfere with the overall law enforcement process by revealing a sensitive investigative technique, or confidential sources or information.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) for the recreational sector for the snapper-grouper deep-water complex (yellowedge grouper, silk snapper, misty grouper, queen snapper, sand tilefish, and blackfin snapper) in the South Atlantic for the 2019 fishing year through this temporary rule. NMFS has determined that recreational landings of the deep-water complex have exceeded the recreational annual catch limit (ACL). Therefore, NMFS closes the recreational sector for this complex on December 11, 2019, through the remainder of the 2019 fishing year in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. This closure is necessary to protect the species in the deep-water complex.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, December 11, 2019, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2020.
Frank Helies, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes the deep-water complex, which includes yellowedge grouper, silk snapper, misty grouper, queen snapper, sand tilefish, and blackfin snapper, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The recreational ACL for the deep-water complex is 38,628 lb (17,521 kg), round weight. Under 50 CFR 622.193(h)(2)(i), NMFS is required to close the recreational sector for the deep-water complex when the recreational ACL has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register, unless NMFS determines that no closure is necessary based on the best scientific information available. NMFS has determined that the recreational sector has exceeded the ACL for this complex. Therefore, this temporary rule implements an AM to close the recreational sector for the deep-water complex in the South Atlantic EEZ, effective 12:01 a.m., local time, December 11, 2019, until January 1, 2020, the start of the next fishing year.
During the recreational closure, the bag and possession limits for the fish in the deep-water complex in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero. Therefore, as of 12:01 a.m. on December 11, 2019, no recreational harvest of fish in the deep-water complex from the South Atlantic EEZ is allowed for the remainder of the 2019 fishing year.
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the deep-water complex, a component of the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery, and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(h)(2)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and public comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the recreational sector for the deep-water complex constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the AM itself has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the deep-water complex. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially allow the recreational sector to further exceed its ACL.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
This rule requires commercial groundfish bottom longline vessels 26 feet (7.9 meters (m)) length overall and longer managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan to use streamer lines while setting gear or to set gear between civil dusk and civil dawn (night set) when fishing in Federal waters north of 36° North latitude. The action is necessary to fulfill terms and conditions of a 2017 United States Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion to minimize incidental take of Endangered Species Act-listed short-tailed albatross (
This final rule is effective January 10, 2020.
Electronic copies of supporting documents referenced in this final rule, including a Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Keeley Kent, phone: 206-526-4655, or email:
The purpose of this rule is to reduce interactions between seabirds, especially Endangered Species Act-listed species, and groundfish longline gear. Longline vessels fishing under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) interact with short-tailed albatross, which are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A 2012 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Opinion on the continued operation of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery required vessels 55 feet (ft) (16.8 m) and longer length overall (LOA) using bottom longline gear (as defined in 50 CFR 660.11) to use streamer lines (80 FR 71975; November 18, 2015) to reduce seabird interactions. Smaller vessels were not included in the requirement. However, research since then has shown that vessel size is not a limiting factor on seabird interactions (USFWS Biological Opinion 2017).
In 2015, the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Groundfish Endangered Species Act Workgroup estimated that incidental take of short-tailed albatross in groundfish longline fisheries exceeded the incidental take level allowed in the 2012 Biological Opinion (Section 1.2 of the Analysis). Thus, NMFS reinitiated consultation in 2016 with the USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. On May 2, 2017, USFWS published its new Biological Opinion on the fishery. The Incidental Take Statement (ITS) in the 2017 Biological Opinion lists nondiscretionary terms and conditions, one of which requires NMFS to amend the fishery regulations to require vessels fishing for groundfish in Federal waters that use longline gear to:
(i) Employ streamer lines in the commercial longline fishery of the Pacific Coast Ground Fishery consistent with the Alaska streamer line regulations for Federal waters, including the use of single streamer lines on boats 26-55 feet (7.9-16.8 m) in length, or
(ii) Set longlines after civil sunset.
The ITS requires that NMFS implement these regulation changes as soon as practical, but initiation of implementation shall not exceed a three-year period after the date of the Biological Opinion.
The Council evaluated the requirements of the ITS and analyzed an action to amend the regulations implementing the FMP to address seabird bycatch in the fishery at its November 2018, April 2019, and June 2019 meetings. The Council recommended a preferred alternative at its April 2019 meeting and took final action in June 2019. The Council deemed the proposed regulations consistent with and necessary to implement the changes to the Seabird Avoidance Program in an August 15, 2019, letter from Council Chairman Phil Anderson to Regional Administrator Barry Thom. Additional discussion of the background and rationale for the Council's development of changes to the Seabird Avoidance Program regulations is included in the proposed rule (84 FR 48094; September 12, 2019) and is not repeated here. Detailed information, including the supporting documentation the Council considered while developing these recommendations, is available at the Council's website,
This rule amends the Seabird Avoidance Program regulations for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery at 50 CFR 660.21 to implement the requirements of the 2017 USFWS Biological Opinion. This rule extends the streamer line requirements previously in place for vessels greater than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA to vessels greater than or equal to 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA using bottom longline gear, as defined under 50 CFR 660.11, when fishing north of 36° N latitude. This rule also exempts all Pacific coast groundfish vessels subject to seabird avoidance requirements from streamer line requirements when night setting and exempts vessels greater than or equal to 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA from using streamer lines when a National Weather Service (NWS) Small Craft Advisory for Winds is declared. This section describes the types of gear used in the fishery and the expanded seabird bycatch avoidance measures and exemptions.
The Council recommended, and NMFS is implementing, an exemption for vessels fishing south of 36° N latitude due to the rare presence of short-tailed albatross in this area, and as a result, decreased likelihood of interaction with fishing gear. This exemption applies to all sizes of vessels; therefore, it creates a new exemption for the vessels greater than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA that have been subject to streamer line requirements since 2015.
Bottom longline gear includes snap gear, which is a variant of this gear type in which the gangion and hook are attached to the groundline by means of a mechanical fastener or snap, usually during gear deployment. Because vessel operators may snap the gangion and hook to the groundline during deployment, this gear configuration often means that vessels deploy the gear at a slower speed than standard bottom longline gear. This rule requires a different streamer line configuration for vessels using snap gear that are greater than or equal to 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA to accommodate the slower snap gear deployment speed and is consistent with the existing regulations for vessels greater than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA.
A portion of the vessels participating in this fishery use a variant of bottom longline gear where floats are attached to the mainline at the midpoint between the weights that sink the gear to the seafloor. The floats elevate the mainline off the seafloor to minimize depredation by “sea lice” (isopods) and hagfish, which can occur when baited hooks are immobile on the seafloor. While the floats elevate the mainline, this gear is still predominantly in contact with the seafloor, and therefore is categorized as bottom longline gear as opposed to pelagic longline gear. Because of the slower sink rate of floated longline gear, streamer lines are less effective in minimizing seabird bycatch. With floated gear, that portion of the longline adjacent to the float is exposed to seabird attacks well beyond the extent of the streamer lines. Due to safety concerns, difficulty in assessing the number of vessels using floated longline gear because of data limitations, and concerns about the burden such a requirement would place on vessels that may typically only conduct day trips, the Council did not include special requirements for floated mainline gear at this time. However, we acknowledge that there are concerns with the effectiveness of streamer lines for reducing seabird interactions for floated mainline gear. NMFS intends to pursue further research on this issue and to fulfill the terms and conditions of the 2017 Biological Opinion, which directs NMFS to conduct research that
This rule requires the following configurations of streamer lines for vessels greater than or equal to 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA.
1. Be a minimum of 300 ft (91.4 m) in length;
2. Have streamers spaced every 16.4 ft (5 m);
3. Be deployed before the first hook is set in such a way that streamers are in the air for a minimum of 131.2 ft (40 m) aft of the stern and within 6.6 ft (2 m) horizontally of the point where the main groundline enters the water;
4. Have individual streamers that hang attached to the mainline to 9.8 in (0.25 m) above the waterline in the absence of wind;
5. Have at least eight streamers out of the water aft of the vessel; and
6. Have streamers constructed of material that is brightly colored, UV-protected plastic tubing or
1. Be a minimum of 147.6 ft (45 m) in length;
2. Have streamers spaced every 16.4 ft (5 m);
3. Be deployed before the first hook is set in such a way that streamers are in the air for a minimum of 65.6 ft (20 m) aft of the stern and within 6.6 ft (2 m) horizontally of the point where the main groundline enters the water;
4. Have individual streamers that hang attached to the mainline to 9.8 in (0.25 m) above the waterline in the absence of wind;
5. Have at least four streamers out of the water aft of the vessel; and
6. Have streamers constructed of material that is brightly colored, UV-protected plastic tubing or
1. A buoy bag line consists of two components: A length of line (without streamers attached) and one or more float devices at the terminal end.
2. Have a buoy bag line that hangs over the area where baited hooks may be accessible to seabirds, which is generally within 6.5 feet (2 m) of the sea surface.
This rule exempts all Pacific coast groundfish vessels subject to seabird avoidance requirements from streamer line requirements when night setting. In the rule, we define night setting as deployment of gear between civil dusk (defined as one hour after local sunset) and civil dawn (defined as one hour before local sunrise). This exemption applies to all sizes of vessels and therefore creates a new exemption for the vessels greater than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA that have been subject to streamer line requirements since 2015.
Finally, this rule includes weather safety exemptions due to the risk of entanglement of streamer lines in fishing gear in high winds. In addition to the existing weather safety exemptions for vessels greater than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA, this rule includes a weather safety exemption for vessels greater than or equal to 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA when fishing in an area under a NWS Small Craft Advisory for winds (winds 21 to 33 knots) or in an area seaward of such an area.
NMFS solicited public comment on the proposed seabird avoidance measures (84 FR 48094, September 12, 2019). The comment period ended October 15, 2019. NMFS received two comment letters: One from the National Audubon Society on behalf of five organizations and the other from a private citizen. The comment letters raise similar issues regarding the potential need for additional NMFS actions. The letters are available in their entirety from NMFS (see
There is one non-substantive change to the regulations implemented in this final rule from those in the proposed rule. NMFS determined that additional regulatory changes were required to effectuate the purpose and intent described in the proposed rule. Specifically, additional regulatory changes were needed to clarify implementation of the terms and conditions of the 2017 USFWS Biological Opinion regarding reporting and handling requirements for short-tailed albatross. The regulations in the proposed rule clarified the reporting and handling requirements for short-tailed albatross for vessels in the bottom longline fishery consistent with the 2017 Biological Opinion. This final rule modifies existing regulations at §§ 660.140(g)(1) and (g)(3)(ii)(B) and 660.604(p)(1)(ii) to ensure consistency for the reporting and handling requirements regarding short-tailed albatross for vessels in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. This change in the regulations clarifies that vessels using trawl gear while fishing under the Pacific Coast groundfish FMP follow the handling and reporting requirements for injured or dead short-tailed albatross as detailed in § 660.21(c)(1)(v). The requirement that NMFS disseminate short-tailed albatross disposition instructions for fishers and observers in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery has been in place since the 2012 Biological Opinion completed by the USFWS; the change in regulations in this final rule would clarify that those instructions also apply to trawl vessels. This change from the proposed rule is not substantive, has no on-the-water effects, and will reduce potential confusion regarding handling and reporting requirements for short-tailed albatross.
Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
NMFS prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) under section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA). A summary of any significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action are addressed below. NMFS also prepared a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for this action. A copy of the RIR is available from NMFS (see
As applicable, section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking and when an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code. The following paragraphs constitute the FRFA for this action.
This FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary of any significant issues raised by the public comments, NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. Analytical requirements for the FRFA are described in the RFA, section 604(a)(1) through (6). FRFAs contain:
1. A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;
2. A statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments;
3. The response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments;
4. A description and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply, or an explanation of why no such estimate is available;
5. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and
6. A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.
The “universe” of entities to be considered in a FRFA generally includes only those small entities that can reasonably be expected to be directly regulated by the action. If the effects of the rule fall primarily on a distinct segment of the industry, or portion thereof (
In preparing a FRFA, an agency may provide either a quantifiable or numerical description of the effects of a rule (and alternatives to the rule), or more general descriptive statements, if quantification is not practicable or reliable.
The need for and objective of this final rule is described above in the Background section of the preamble and not repeated here.
NMFS published a proposed rule to modify the Seabird Avoidance Program for the West Coast groundfish fishery on September 12, 2019 (84 FR 48094). An IRFA was prepared and summarized in
The RFA (5 U.S.C. 601
For marinas and charter/party boats, a small business is one that has annual receipts not in excess of $7.5 million. A wholesale business servicing the fishing industry is a small business if it employs 100 or fewer persons on a full time, part time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide. A nonprofit organization is determined to be “not dominant in its field of operation” if it is considered small under one of the following Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards: Environmental, conservation, or professional organizations are considered small if they have combined annual receipts of $15 million or less, and other organizations are considered small if they have combined annual receipts of $7.5 million or less.
The RFA defines small governmental jurisdictions as governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than 50,000.
This rule would directly affect groundfish longline vessels. These vessels are defined as small entities based on the criteria provided above. Baseline information reported in Section 3.5.2 of the Analysis suggests that as many as 387 of such vessels greater than or equal to 26 ft (7.9 m) and less than 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA could be subject to the requirement to use streamer lines or set gear at night. An additional 37 vessels greater than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA could be subject to elements of the rule (area exemptions south of 36° N latitude, night setting option) and also qualify as small entities. These counts are the maximum estimate, as vessels move in and out of the fishery between years.
There is not a strict one-to-one correlation between vessels and entities; some persons or firms likely have ownership interests in more than one vessel. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 3.5.4 of the Analysis, most of these vessels had a relatively low level of participation in the fishery during the baseline period, although in principal any level of participation would trigger seabird avoidance requirements (streamer line use, night setting). Given these factors, the actual number of entities regulated by this action could be lower than the preceding estimates.
There are no reporting or record-keeping requirements with this final rule. All longline vessels, whether classified as small or not, will be subject to new compliance requirements under this final rule to either use streamer lines or night set in order to reduce seabird interactions.
There are no significant alternatives to this final rule that would accomplish the stated objectives in a way that would reduce economic impacts of the final rule on small entities. This action responds to a non-discretionary term and condition in the 2017 USFWS Biological Opinion, which specifies the seabird avoidance measures that must be implemented to reduce the risk of incidental take of short-tailed albatross. For that reason, there are no significant alternatives to the action evaluated in this FRFA.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available from the West Coast Regional Office (see
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
(b)
(1) Vessels greater than or equal to 26 ft (7.9 m) LOA engaged in commercial fishing for groundfish with bottom longline gear, including snap gear, as defined under “Fishing gear” in § 660.11, including those operating under the gear switching provisions of the Limited Entry Trawl Fishery, Shorebased IFQ Program as specified in § 660.140(k), or those operating under the limited entry fixed gear fishery in subpart E or under the open access fishery in subpart F of this part, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2) of this section.
(c) * * *
(1)
(i) Gear onboard. Have onboard the vessel seabird avoidance gear meeting the material standards specified in
(ii) Gear inspection. Upon request by an authorized officer or observer, make the seabird avoidance gear available for inspection.
(iii) Gear use. Use seabird avoidance gear as specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section that meets the material standards specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section while bottom longline and snap gears are being deployed.
(iv) Material standards for all streamer lines. All streamer lines must:
(A) Have streamers spaced every 16.4 ft (5 m).
(B) Have individual streamers that hang attached to the mainline to 9.8 in (0.25 m) above the waterline in the absence of wind.
(C) Have streamers constructed of material that is brightly colored, UV-protected plastic tubing or
(v) Handling of hooked short-tailed albatross. If a short-tailed albatross is hooked or entangled by a vessel, owners and operators must ensure that the following actions are taken:
(A) Stop the vessel to reduce the tension on the line and bring the bird on board the vessel using a dip net;
(B) Determine if the bird is alive or dead.
(C) If alive, follow these instructions:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(D) If dead, freeze the bird immediately with an identification tag attached directly to the specimen listing the species, location and date of mortality, and band number if the bird has a leg band. Attach a duplicate identification tag to the bag or container holding the bird. Any leg bands present must remain on the bird. Contact NMFS or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the numbers listed on the West Coast Seabird Avoidance Measures flyer, inform them that you have a dead short-tailed albatross on board, and submit the bird to NMFS or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within 72 hours following completion of the fishing trip.
(E) All incidents involving the hooking of short-tailed albatross must be reported to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement by the vessel operator within 72 hours of taking an albatross by phoning 360-753-7764 (WA); 503-682-6131 (OR); or 916-414-6660 (CA).
(F) If a NMFS observer is on board at the time of a hooking event, the observer shall be responsible for the disposition of any captured short-tailed albatross and for reporting to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement. Otherwise, the vessel operator shall be responsible.
(2)
(i) For vessels with masts, poles, or rigging using snap gear as defined at § 660.11, the following requirements apply:
(A) Vessels must deploy a minimum of a single streamer line in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section.
(B) Streamer lines must be a minimum length of 147.6 ft (45 m).
(C) Streamer lines must be deployed so that streamers are in the air a minimum of 65.6 ft (20 m) aft of the stern and within 6 ft 7 in (2 m) horizontally of the point where the main groundline enters the water before the first hook is set. A minimum of 4 streamers must be out of the water aft of the stern.
(ii) For vessels with masts, poles, or rigging using bottom longline other than snap gear, as defined in paragraph (6)(i) of the definition of fishing gear in § 660.11, the following requirements apply:
(A) Streamer lines must be a minimum length of 300 feet (91.4 m).
(B) The number of streamer lines required and the streamer line deployment requirements vary by vessel length as follows:
(
(
(
(
(iii) Vessels without masts, poles, or rigging. A minimum of 1 buoy bag line must be used by vessels without superstructure, including masts, poles, or rigging. The buoy bag line must hang over the area where baited hooks may be accessible to seabirds, which is generally within 6.5 feet (2 m) of the sea surface.
(iv) The following weather safety exemptions apply, based on vessel length:
(A) Vessels greater than or equal to 26 feet (7.9 m) and less than 55 feet (16.8 m) LOA are exempted from the requirements of paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section when a National Weather Service Small Craft Advisory for Winds is in effect, or other National Weather Service Advisory for wind speeds exceeding those that trigger a Small Craft Advisory for Winds. This exemption applies only during the time and within the area indicated in the National Weather Service Weather Advisory or in an area seaward of such an area.
(B) Vessels 55 feet and longer (16.8 m) LOA are exempted from the requirements of paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section when a National Weather Service Gale Warning is in effect. This exemption applies only during the time and within the area indicated in the National Weather Service Gale Warning.
(3)
(g) * * *
(1)
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B)
(p) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Large individual marine organisms (
(2)
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Proposed rule; notification of extension of public comment period.
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) of the Department of Labor (Department) is issuing this document to advise the public of an extension to the public comment period. Initially, the proposed rule established a public comment period from November 7, 2019 through December 9, 2019. The Department has extended the deadline for submitting public comments to December 11, 2019, due to a website outage.
The comment period for the proposed rule published November 7, 2019, at 84 FR 60150 is extended. Send comments on or before December 11, 2019.
You may send comments, identified by Docket No. ETA-2019-0009 and Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1205-AB78, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please submit your comments by only one method. Please be advised that the Department will post all comments received that relate to this NPRM without changes to
Also, please note that due to security concerns, postal mail delivery in Washington, DC may be delayed. Therefore, the Department encourages the public to submit comments on
Heidi Casta, Deputy Administrator, Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-5641, Washington, DC 20210, Telephone: (202) 693-3700 (voice) (this is not a toll-free number) or 1-800-326-2577 (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf).
The ETA is extending the public comment period for the proposed rule published in the
Signed at Washington, DC.
Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
This document extends the period for submitting written comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The comment period for the proposed rule published October 8, 2019, at 84 FR 53956, is extended. Comments should be received on or before December 11, 2019.
To facilitate the receipt and processing of written comments on this NPRM, the Department encourages interested persons to submit their comments electronically. You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1235-AA21, by either of the following methods:
Amy DeBisschop, Director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, 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). Copies of this NPRM may be obtained in alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Tape or Disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693-0675 (this is not a toll-free number). TTY/TDD callers may dial toll-free 1 (877) 889-5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats.
Questions of interpretation and/or enforcement of the agency's regulations may be directed to the nearest WHD district office. Locate the nearest office by calling the WHD's toll-free help line at (866) 4US-WAGE ((866) 487-9243) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. in your local time zone, or log onto WHD's website at
On October 8, 2019, the Department published an NPRM and request for comments in the
National Labor Relations Board.
Notice of extension of time to submit comments.
The National Labor Relations Board (the Board) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the
Comments to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking must be received by the Board on or before January 9, 2020. Comments replying to the comments submitted during the initial comment period must be received by the Board on or before January 23, 2020.
Internet—Federal eRulemaking Portal. Electronic comments may be submitted through
Delivery—Comments should be sent by mail or hand delivery to: Roxanne Rothschild, Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE, Washington, DC 20570-0001. Because of security precautions, the Board continues to experience delays in U.S. mail delivery. You should take this into consideration when preparing to meet the deadline for submitting comments. The Board encourages electronic filing. It is not necessary to send comments if they have been filed electronically with
Only comments submitted through
The Board will post, as soon as practicable, all comments received on
Roxanne Rothschild, Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE, Washington, DC 20570-0001, (202) 273-1940 (this is not a toll-free number), 1-866-315-6572 (TTY/TDD).
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) proposes amending its rule covering official time for representatives who are employees of the federal government. The Commission seeks to clarify that its rule concerning official time does not apply to representatives who serve in an official capacity in a labor organization that is the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit. The Commission is doing this because it believes that the relevant labor relations statute articulates the best policy for determining if someone receives official time when they act for a labor organization and the Commission does not want its regulations to undermine this approach.
Comments are due on or before February 10, 2020.
You may submit comments by the following methods:
You may submit comments, identified by RIN Number 3046-AB00, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Andrew Maunz, Special Assistant to the Chair,
Under section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Commission is responsible for the enforcement of equal employment opportunity (EEO) in the federal employment. As such, the Commission is authorized to issue rules, regulations, orders, and instructions as necessary and appropriate to carry out its EEO responsibilities. Section 717(b) of Title VII provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this subsection, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall have authority to enforce the provisions of subsection (a) of this section through appropriate remedies . . . . and shall issue such rules, regulations, orders and instructions as it deems necessary and appropriate to carry out its responsibilities under this section.” Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16.
In 1978, the President consolidated numerous EEO responsibilities at the EEOC and, among other things, transferred responsibility for all federal sector EEO from the Civil Service Commission to the EEOC.
Although the EEOC's original 1979 federal sector regulation at 29 CFR part
When the Civil Service Commission first crafted this approach in 1972, Congress had not yet passed the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), which it did in 1978. The FSLMRS established the ability for someone acting on behalf of a labor organization to receive official time, in some instances as a right, but in many instances pursuant to an agreement between the agency and the union. 5 U.S.C. 7131. Specifically, 5 U.S.C. 7131(d)(1) states that “any employee representing an exclusive representative . . . shall be granted official time in any amount the agency and the exclusive representative involved agree to be reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest.”
Since union official time did not exist in statute until 1978, there was no reason for the CSC's original EEO procedures to address union official time when it first published the regulation in 1972. However, in its subsequent modifications of the EEO procedures, the Commission has not expressly addressed the availability of “reasonable” official time to union officials or how the Commission's official time regulation for EEO proceedings interacts with the FSLMRS.
The Commission now proposes to amend section 1614.605(b) to exclude union representatives from its grant of reasonable official time for EEO proceedings. Failing to clarify the Commission's regulation can cause agencies and unions to be unclear on exactly which aspects of official time they need to bargain. Furthermore, the FSLMRS was specifically designed to address the unique relationship between labor organizations and federal agencies.
Therefore, the Commission proposes to amend its regulation to clearly state that its official time provision does not apply if the representative serves in an official capacity in a labor organization that is an exclusive representative of employees at the agency.
The Commission has complied with the principles in section 1(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of the Order, and therefore it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
The Commission certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it applies exclusively to employees and agencies of the federal government and does not impose a burden on any business entities. For this reason, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
While the Commission believes the proposed rule does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996), it will still follow the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801.
Administrative practice and procedure, Equal Employment Opportunity.
For the Commission.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend part 1614 as follows:
29 U.S.C. 206(d), 633a, 791 and 794a; 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16 and 2000ff-6(e); E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218; E.O. 11222, 3 CFR 1954-1958 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 11478, 3 CFR, 1969 Comp., p. 133; E.O. 12106, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 263; Reorg. Plan No 1 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 321.
(b) * * * This paragraph does not apply to a representative if he or she serves as an officer, steward, or otherwise in an official capacity in a labor organization that is the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit at the agency under the relevant provisions of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS). The Commission will leave whether such a representative can
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Commission proposes revised rules modifying the system for regulating rates and classes for market dominant products. The revised rules incorporate feedback from comments received from the Commission's prior proposed rulemaking. The rule revisions replace some rules in their entirety, move others, and change existing rules as necessary.
For additional information, Order No. 5337 can be accessed electronically through the Commission's website at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Section 3622 of title 39 of the United States Code established a system to regulate the rates and classes of Market Dominant Postal products. The Commission is required to conduct a review of the Market Dominant ratemaking system 10 years after the enactment of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), Public Law 109-435, 120 Stat. 3198 (2006). 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(3). The Commission's purpose in the review is to determine whether the system is achieving the objectives appearing in subsection (b) of section 3622, taking into account the factors appearing in subsection (c) of 3622. If, upon completion of the mandatory 10-year review, including an opportunity for notice and public comment, the Commission determines that the system is not achieving the objectives (taking into account the factors), the Commission may “by regulation, make such modification or adopt such alternative system for regulating rates and classes for market-dominant products as necessary to achieve the objectives.” 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(3).
Pursuant to the directives in section 3622 of the PAEA, the Commission initiated Docket No. RM2017-3 to conduct a comprehensive analysis of whether the PAEA system achieved the nine objectives, taking into account the factors, in the decade following the PAEA's enactment. The Commission issued Order No. 4257 setting forth the findings from its review.
In response to its conclusions in Order No. 4257 and as contemplated by section 3622(d)(3), the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR)
In Order No. 4257, the Commission concluded that “while some aspects of the system of regulating rates and classes for market dominant products have worked as planned, overall, the system has not achieved the objectives of the PAEA.” Order No. 4257 at 5. The Commission analyzed the system by reviewing three topical areas that encompassed the nine objectives of the PAEA: (1) The structure of the ratemaking system; (2) the financial health of the Postal Service; and (3) service.
In its analysis of the financial health of the Postal Service, the Commission determined that “financial stability, including retained earnings, has not been maintained for the Postal Service in the medium and long-term time frames and that cost reductions and operational efficiency gains have not been maximized.”
Subsequently, the Commission issued the NPR setting forth proposed rules to address the shortcomings of the system of ratemaking based on the conclusions in Order No. 4257. With respect to the finding that the system did not achieve pricing efficiency, the Commission proposed rules to modify the requirements related to workshare discounts. The proposed rules phased out two practices that harm pricing efficiency: “workshare discounts set substantially below avoided costs and workshare discounts set substantially above avoided costs.” Order No. 4258 at 93.
To address the findings related to the system's failure to provide for the financial health of the Postal Service, the Commission made three proposals intended to address the failure to attain
Finally, the NPR proposed additional procedural improvements intended to “improve the ratemaking process relating to planned rate adjustments of general applicability.”
After further consideration, including consideration of the comments received in response to the NPR, the Commission provides revisions to its proposed rules in its Revised NPR.
First, the Commission modifies the proposed supplemental rate authority mechanism to address specific drivers of the Postal Service's inability to achieve net income during the PAEA era. Order No. 5337 at 12. Instead of a singular, fixed amount of supplemental rate authority, the revised supplemental authority proposal includes two separate mechanisms intended to provide rate authority to address costs largely outside the Postal Service's control.
Second, the Commission adjusts the performance-based authority to retain the 1 percentage point of rate authority benchmark but modifies how the specific performance-based requirements for operational efficiency and service will be measured.
Next, the Commission makes minor revisions to the rules for non-compensatory products and classes, proposing that the use of an additional 2 percentage points of rate authority for non-compensatory classes be optional and removing the requirement that determinations of a class's compensatory status be made only in the Annual Compliance Determination proceeding.
The Commission further proposes revised rules for worksharing discounts that dispense with the use of the 3-year grace period.
The Commission also proposes new reporting requirements for costs and cost-reduction initiatives in response to commenter concerns and in light of the revised proposals for additional rate authority.
Finally, the Commission proposes additional procedural rules related to planning rate adjustments of general applicability.
Proposed 39 CFR part 3010, subpart A describes the applicability of the rules, provides an index, sets forth relevant definitions, and modifies the schedule for regular and predictable rate adjustments.
Proposed 39 CFR part 3010, subpart B modifies procedures applicable to periodic rate adjustments (including extending notice and filing periods from 45 to 90 days), setting forth specific requirements for contents of a rate adjustment filing (including mandating that the Postal Service certify that it has used the most recently accepted analytical principles in its rate adjustment filing), specifying content to
Proposed 39 CFR part 3010, subpart C relates to the timing of rate adjustment authority dependent on CPI-U.
Proposed 39 CFR part 3010, subpart D creates additional rate authority to address the effects of decreases in mail density and sets forth the data sources and calculation of the density rate authority.
Proposed 39 CFR part 3010, subpart E creates additional rate authority to provide the Postal Service with revenue for remittance towards the statutorily mandated Retirement Health Benefits Fund, Civil Service Retirement System, and Federal Employees Retirement System unfunded liabilities. This section provides definitions, procedures applicable to claiming the additional rate authority, and the data sources, calculation, and requirement that the Postal Service remit the amount of revenue collected under this authority towards the supplemental and unfunded liabilities.
Proposed 39 CFR part 3010, subpart F creates an additional 1 percentage point of rate authority per class of mail based upon the Postal Service meeting or exceeding an operational efficiency-based requirement and adhering to a service standard-based requirement. This section sets forth the timing for the Postal Service to claim the additional rate authority and describes the criteria for claiming both the operational efficiency-based requirement and the service standard-based requirement.
Proposed 39 CFR part 3010, subpart G describes new rate-setting criteria applicable to non-compensatory classes and products.
Proposed 39 CFR part 3010, subpart H relates to the manner by which the Postal Service is required to calculate unused rate adjustment authority and, if applicable, revise the schedule of banked rate adjustment authority whenever it plans to adjust rates.
Proposed 39 CFR 3010, subpart I incorporates the requirements concerning exigent rate increases. These updates are not intended to change the meaning or operation of the current rules, but the current rules have been reorganized.
Proposed 39 CFR 3010, subpart J establishes rate design criteria for workshare discounts, including setting forth new limited instances in which the Postal Service may set workshare discounts below avoided costs.
To create global consistency between 39 CFR parts 3010 and 3020, conforming changes are proposed to §§ 3020.32, 3020.52, 3020.72, 3020.81, 3020.82, 3020.90, 3020.91, and 39 CFR 3020, subpart G.
Additional conforming changes are proposed in 39 CFR part 3050 for §§ 3050.20, 3050.21, 3050.55, and 3050.60. Conforming changes are also proposed in 39 CFR part 3055 for § 3055.2.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend Chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
39 U.S.C. 503; 3622.
(a) The rules in this part implement provisions in 39 U.S.C. chapter 36, subchapter I, establishing the modern system of ratemaking for regulating rates and classes for market dominant products. These rules are applicable whenever the Postal Service proposes to adjust a rate of general applicability for any market dominant product, which includes the addition of a new rate, the removal of an existing rate, or a change to an existing rate. Current rates may be found in the Mail Classification Schedule appearing on the Commission's website at
(b) Rates may be adjusted either subject to the rules appearing in subpart B of this part, which includes a limitation on rate increases, or subject to the rules appearing in subpart I of this part, which does not include a limitation on rate increases but requires either extraordinary or exceptional circumstances. The rules applicable to the calculation of the limitations on rate increases appear in subparts C through H of this part. The rules for workshare discounts, which are applicable whenever market dominant rates are adjusted, appear in subpart J of this part.
(a) The definitions in paragraphs (b) through (m) of this section apply to this part.
(b) “Annual limitation” means the annual limitation on the percentage change in rates equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) unadjusted for seasonal variation over the most recently available 12-month period preceding the date the Postal Service files a request to review its notice of rate adjustment, as determined by the Commission.
(c) “Banked rate authority” means unused rate adjustment authority accumulated for future use pursuant to these rules.
(d) A “class” of mail means the First-Class Mail, USPS Marketing Mail, Periodicals, Package Services, or Special Services groupings of market dominant Postal Service products or services. Generally, the regulations in this part are applicable to individual classes of mail.
(e) “Density rate authority” means rate authority that is available to all classes to address the effects of decreases in density of mail.
(f) “Maximum rate adjustment authority” means the maximum percentage change in rates available to a class for any planned increase in rates. It is the sum of: The consumer price index rate authority, and any available density rate authority, retirement obligation rate authority, banked rate authority, performance-based rate authority, and rate authority applicable to non-compensatory classes.
(g) “Performance-based rate authority” means rate authority that is available to all classes where the Postal Service meets or exceeds operational efficiency-based requirement and adheres to service standard-based requirement as determined by the Commission.
(h) “Rate authority applicable to non-compensatory classes” means rate authority available to classes where revenue for each product within the class was insufficient to cover that product's attributable costs as determined by the Commission.
(i) “Rate cell” means each and every separate rate identified as a rate of general applicability.
(j) “Rate incentive” means a discount that is not a workshare discount and that is designed to increase or retain volume, improve the value of mail for mailers, or improve the operations of the Postal Service.
(k) “Rate of general applicability” means a rate applicable to all mail meeting standards established by the Mail Classification Schedule, the Domestic Mail Manual, and the International Mail Manual. A rate is not a rate of general applicability if eligibility for the rate is dependent on factors other than the characteristics of the mail to which the rate applies. A rate is not a rate of general applicability if it benefits a single mailer. A rate that is only available upon the written agreement of both the Postal Service and a mailer, a group of mailers, or a foreign postal operator is not a rate of general applicability.
(l) “Retirement obligation rate authority” means rate authority that is available to all classes to provide revenue for remittance towards the statutorily mandated amortization payments for unfunded liabilities.
(m) A “seasonal or temporary rate” is a rate that is in effect for a limited and defined period of time.
(a) The Postal Service shall develop a Schedule for Regular and Predictable Rate Adjustments applicable to rate adjustments subject to this part. The Schedule for Regular and Predictable Rate Adjustments shall:
(1) Schedule rate adjustments at specific regular intervals of time;
(2) Provide estimated filing and implementation dates (month and year) for future rate adjustments for each class of mail expected over a minimum of the next 3 years; and
(3) Provide an explanation that will allow mailers to predict with reasonable accuracy, by class, the amounts of future scheduled rate adjustments.
(b) The Postal Service shall file a current Schedule for Regular and Predictable Rate Adjustments annually with the Commission at the time of filing the Postal Service's section 3652 report. The Commission shall post the current schedule on the Commission's website at
(c) Whenever the Postal Service deems it appropriate to change the Schedule for Regular and Predictable Rate Adjustments, it shall file a revised schedule.
(d) The Postal Service may vary the magnitude of rate adjustments from those estimated by the Schedule for Regular and Predictable Rate Adjustments. In such case, the Postal Service shall provide an explanation for such variation with its rate adjustment filing.
This subpart describes the process for the periodic adjustment of rates subject to the percentage limitations specified in § 3010.127 that are applicable to each class of mail.
(a) In every instance in which the Postal Service determines to exercise its statutory authority to adjust rates for a class of mail, the Postal Service shall comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
(b) The Postal Service shall take into consideration how the planned rate adjustments are in accordance with the provisions of 39 U.S.C. chapter 36.
(c) The Postal Service shall provide public notice of its planned rate adjustments in a manner reasonably designed to inform the mailing community and the general public that it intends to adjust rates no later than 90
(d) The Postal Service shall file a request to review its notice of rate adjustment with the Commission no later than 90 days prior to the planned implementation date of the rate adjustment.
(a) A rate adjustment filing under § 3010.121 shall include the items specified in paragraphs (b) through (j) of this section.
(b) A representation or evidence that public notice of the planned changes has been issued or will be issued at least 90 days before the effective date(s) for the planned rate adjustments.
(c) The intended effective date(s) of the planned rate adjustments.
(d) A schedule of the planned rate adjustments, including a schedule identifying every change to the Mail Classification Schedule that will be necessary to implement the planned rate adjustments.
(e) The identity of a responsible Postal Service official who will be available to provide prompt responses to requests for clarification from the Commission.
(f) The supporting technical documentation as described in § 3010.123.
(g) A demonstration that the planned rate adjustments are consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3626, 3627, and 3629.
(h) A certification that all cost, avoided cost, volume, and revenue figures submitted with the rate adjustment filing are developed from the most recent applicable Commission accepted analytical principles.
(i) For a rate adjustment that only includes a decrease in rates, a statement of whether the Postal Service elects to generate unused rate adjustment authority.
(j) Such other information as the Postal Service believes will assist the Commission in issuing a timely determination of whether the planned rate adjustments are consistent with applicable statutory policies.
(a) Supporting technical documentation shall include the items specified in paragraphs (b) through (k) of this section, as applicable to the specific rate adjustment filing. This information must be supported by workpapers in which all calculations are shown and all relevant values (
(b) The maximum rate adjustment authority, by class, as summarized by § 3010.127 and calculated separately for each of subparts C through H of this part, as appropriate.
(c) A schedule showing the banked rate adjustment authority available, by class, and the available amount for each of the preceding 5 years calculated as required by subpart H of this part.
(d) The calculation of the percentage change in rates, by class, calculated as required by § 3010.128.
(e) The planned usage of rate adjustment authority, by class, and calculated separately for each of subparts C through H of this part, as appropriate.
(f) The amount of new unused rate adjustment authority, by class, if any, that will be generated by the rate adjustment calculated as required by subpart H of this part, as applicable.
(g) A schedule of the workshare discounts included with the planned rate adjustments, and a companion schedule listing the avoided costs that underlie each such discount.
(h) Whenever the Postal Service establishes a new workshare discount rate, it must include with its filing:
(1) A statement explaining its reasons for establishing the workshare discount;
(2) All data, economic analyses, and other information relied on to justify the workshare discount; and
(3) A certification based on comprehensive, competent analyses that the discount will not adversely affect either the rates or the service levels of users of postal services who do not take advantage of the workshare discount.
(i) Whenever the Postal Service establishes a new discount or surcharge rate it does not view as creating a workshare discount, it must include with its filing:
(1) An explanation of the basis for its view that the discount or surcharge rate is not a workshare discount; and
(2) A certification that the Postal Service applied accepted analytical principles to the discount or surcharge rate.
(j) Whenever the Postal Service includes a rate incentive with its planned rate adjustment, it must include with its filing:
(1) If the rate incentive is a rate of general applicability, sufficient information to demonstrate that the rate incentive is a rate of general applicability; and
(2) A statement of whether the Postal Service has excluded the rate incentive from the calculation of the percentage change in rates under § 3010.128.
(k) For each class or product where the attributable cost for that class or product exceeded the revenue from that class or product as determined by the Commission, a demonstration that the planned rate adjustments comply with the requirements in subpart G of this part.
(a) The Commission will establish a docket for each rate adjustment filed by the Postal Service under § 3010.121, promptly publish notice of the filing in the
(b) The general nature of the proceeding.
(c) A reference to legal authority under which the proceeding is to be conducted.
(d) A concise description of the planned changes in rates, fees, and the Mail Classification Schedule.
(e) The identification of an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the docket.
(f) A period of 30 days from the date of the filing for public comment.
(g) Such other information as the Commission deems appropriate.
Public comments should focus on whether planned rate adjustments comport with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
(a) If the Commission determines that the rate adjustment filing does not substantially comply with the requirements of §§ 3010.122 and 3010.123, the Commission may:
(1) Inform the Postal Service of the deficiencies and provide an opportunity for the Postal Service to take corrective action;
(2) Toll or otherwise modify the procedural schedule until such time the Postal Service takes corrective action;
(3) Dismiss the rate adjustment filing without prejudice; or
(4) Take other action as deemed appropriate by the Commission.
(b) Within 21 days of the conclusion of the public comment period the Commission will determine whether the planned rate adjustments are consistent with applicable law and issue an order announcing its findings. Applicable law means only the applicable requirements
(c) If the planned rate adjustments are found consistent with applicable law, they may take effect.
(d) If the planned rate adjustments are found inconsistent with applicable law, the Commission will notify and require the Postal Service to respond to any issues of noncompliance.
(e) Following the Commission's notice of noncompliance, the Postal Service may submit an amended rate adjustment filing that describes the modifications to its planned rate adjustments that will bring its rate adjustments into compliance. An amended rate adjustment filing shall be accompanied by sufficient explanatory information to show that all deficiencies identified by the Commission have been corrected.
(f) The Commission will allow a period of 10 days from the date of the amended rate adjustment filing for public comment.
(g) The Commission will review the amended rate adjustment filing together with any comments filed for compliance and issue an order announcing its findings within 21 days after the comment period ends.
(h) If the planned rate adjustments as amended are found to be consistent with applicable law, they may take effect. However, no amended rate shall take effect until 45 days after the Postal Service transmits its rate adjustment filing specifying that rate.
(i) If the planned rate adjustments in an amended rate adjustment filing are found to be inconsistent with applicable law, the Commission shall explain the basis for its determination and suggest an appropriate remedy. Noncompliant rates may not go into effect.
(j) A Commission finding that a planned rate adjustment is in compliance with the applicable requirements of this part, Commission directives and orders, and 39 U.S.C. 3626, 3627, and 3629 is decided on the merits. A Commission finding that a planned rate adjustment does not contravene other policies of 39 U.S.C. chapter 36, subchapter I is provisional and subject to subsequent review.
(a) The maximum rate adjustment authority available to the Postal Service for each class of market dominant mail is limited to the sum of the percentage points developed in:
(1) Subpart C—Consumer Price Index Rate Authority;
(2) Subpart D—Density Rate Authority;
(3) Subpart E—Retirement Obligation Rate Authority;
(4) Subpart F—Performance-based Rate Authority;
(4) Subpart G—Non-compensatory Classes or Products; and
(5) Subpart H—Accumulation of Unused and Disbursement of Banked Rate Adjustment Authority.
(b) For any product where the attributable cost for that product exceeded the revenue from that product as determined by the Commission, rates may not be reduced.
(a) For the purpose of calculating the percentage change in rates, the current rate is the rate in effect at the time of the rate adjustment filing under § 3010.121 with the following exceptions.
(1) A seasonal or temporary rate shall be identified and treated as a rate cell separate and distinct from the corresponding non-seasonal or permanent rate. When used with respect to a seasonal or temporary rate, the current rate is the most recent rate in effect for the rate cell, regardless of whether the seasonal or temporary rate is available at the time of the rate adjustment filing.
(2) When used with respect to a rate cell that corresponds to a rate incentive that was previously excluded from the calculation of the percentage change in rates, the current rate is the full undiscounted rate in effect for the rate cell at the time of the rate adjustment filing, not the discounted rate in effect for the rate cell at such time.
(b) For the purpose of calculating the percentage change in rates, the volume for each rate cell shall be obtained from the most recently available 12 months of Postal Service billing determinants with the following permissible adjustments.
(1) The Postal Service shall make reasonable adjustments to the billing determinants to account for the effects of classification changes such as the introduction, deletion, or redefinition of rate cells. The Postal Service shall identify and explain all adjustments. All information and calculations relied upon to develop the adjustments shall be provided together with an explanation of why the adjustments are appropriate.
(2) Whenever possible, adjustments shall be based on known mail characteristics or historical volume data, as opposed to forecasts of mailer behavior.
(3) For an adjustment accounting for the effects of the deletion of a rate cell when an alternate rate cell is not available, the Postal Service should adjust the billing determinants associated with the rate cell to 0. If the Postal Service does not adjust the billing determinants for the rate cell to 0, the Postal Service shall include a rationale for its treatment of the rate cell with the information required under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(c) For a rate adjustment that involves a rate increase, for each class of mail and product within the class, the percentage change in rates is calculated in three steps. First, the volume of each rate cell in the class is multiplied by the planned rate for the respective cell and the resulting products are summed. Second, the same set of rate cell volumes is multiplied by the corresponding current rate for each cell and the resulting products are summed. Third, the percentage change in rates is calculated by dividing the results of the first step by the results of the second step and subtracting 1 from the quotient. The result is expressed as a percentage.
(d) For rate adjustments that only involve a rate decrease, for each class of mail and product within the class, the percentage change in rates is calculated by amending the workpapers attached to the Commission's order relating to the most recent rate adjustment filing that involved a rate increase to replace the planned rates under the most recent rate adjustment filing that involves a rate increase with the corresponding planned rates applicable to the class from the rate adjustment filing involving only a rate decrease.
(e) The formula for calculating the percentage change in rates for a class, described in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, is as follows:
Percentage change in rates =
(f) Treatment of rate incentives.
(1) Rate incentives may be excluded from a percentage change in rates calculation. If the Postal Service elects to exclude a rate incentive from a percentage change in rates calculation, the rate incentive shall be treated in the same manner as a rate under a negotiated service agreement (as described in § 3010.128(g)).
(2) A rate incentive may be included in a percentage change in rates calculation if it meets the following criteria:
(i) The rate incentive is in the form of a discount or can be easily translated into a discount;
(ii) Sufficient billing determinants are available for the rate incentive to be included in the percentage change in rate calculation for the class, which may be adjusted based on known mail characteristics or historical volume data (as opposed to forecasts of mailer behavior); and
(iii) The rate incentive is a rate of general applicability.
(g) Treatment of volume associated with negotiated service agreements and rate incentives that are not rates of general applicability.
(1) Mail volumes sent at rates under a negotiated service agreement or a rate incentive that is not a rate of general applicability are to be included in the calculation of the percentage change in rates under this section as though they paid the appropriate rates of general applicability. Where it is impractical to identify the rates of general applicability (
(2) The Postal Service shall identify and explain all assumptions it makes with respect to the treatment of negotiated service agreements and rate incentives that are not rates of general applicability in the calculation of the percentage change in rates and provide the rationale for its assumptions.
(a) The Postal Service may request that the Commission review a de minimis rate increase without immediately calculating the maximum rate adjustment authority or banking unused rate adjustment authority. For this exception to apply, requests to review de minimis rate adjustments must be filed separately from any other request to review a rate adjustment filing.
(b) Rate adjustments resulting in rate increases are de minimis if:
(1) For each affected class, the rate increases do not result in the percentage change in rates for the class equaling or exceeding 0.001 percent; and
(2) For each affected class, the sum of all rate increases included in de minimis rate increases since the most recent rate adjustment resulting in a rate increase, or the most recent rate adjustment due to extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, that was not a de minimis rate increase does not result in the percentage change in rates for the class equaling or exceeding 0.001 percent.
(c) If the rate adjustments are de minimis, no unused rate adjustment authority will be added to the schedule of banked rate adjustment authority maintained under subpart G of this part as a result of the de minimis rate increase.
(d) If the rate adjustments are de minimis, no rate decreases may be taken into account when determining whether rate increases comply with paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(e) In the next rate adjustment filing proposing to increase rates for a class that is not a de minimis rate increase:
(1) The maximum rate adjustment authority shall be calculated as if the de minimis rate increase had not been filed; and
(2) For purposes of calculating the percentage change in rates, the current rate shall be the current rate from the de minimis rate increase.
(f) The Postal Service shall file supporting workpapers with each request to review a de minimis rate increase that demonstrate that the sum of all rate increases included in de minimis rate increases since the most recent rate adjustment resulting in a rate increase that was not de minimis, or the most recent rate adjustment due to extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, does not result in a percentage change in rates for the class equaling or exceeding 0.001 percent.
(g) For any product where the attributable cost for that product exceeded the revenue from that product as determined by the Commission, rates may not be reduced.
The Postal Service may adjust rates based upon changes in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) identified in § 3010.141. If rate adjustment filings involving rate increases are filed 12 or more months apart, rate adjustments are subject to a full year limitation calculated pursuant to § 3010.142. If rate adjustment filings involving rate increases are filed less than 12 months apart, rate adjustments are subject to a partial year limitation calculated pursuant to § 3010.143.
The monthly CPI-U values needed for the calculation of rate adjustment limitations under this section shall be obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Consumer Price Index—All Urban Consumers, U.S. All Items, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Base Period 1982-84 = 100. The current Series ID for the index is “CUUR0000SA0.”
(a) If a rate adjustment filing involving a rate increase is filed 12 or more months after the most recent rate adjustment filing involving a rate increase, then the calculation of an annual limitation for the class (full year limitation) involves three steps. First, a simple average CPI-U index is calculated by summing the most recently available 12 monthly CPI-U values from the date of the rate adjustment filing and dividing the sum by 12 (Recent Average). Second, a second simple average CPI-U index is similarly calculated by summing the 12 monthly CPI-U values immediately preceding the Recent Average and dividing the sum by 12 (Base Average). Third, the full year limitation is calculated by dividing the Recent Average by the Base Average and subtracting 1 from the quotient. The result is expressed as a percentage, rounded to three decimal places.
(b) The formula for calculating a full year limitation for a rate adjustment filing filed 12 or more months after the last rate adjustment filing is as follows: Full Year Limitation = (Recent Average/Base Average)−1.
(a) If a rate adjustment filing involving a rate increase is filed less than 12 months after the most recent rate adjustment filing involving a rate increase, then the annual limitation for the class (partial year limitation) will recognize the rate increases that have occurred during the preceding 12 months. When the effects of those increases are removed, the remaining partial year limitation is the applicable restriction on rate increases.
(b) The applicable partial year limitation is calculated in two steps. First, a simple average CPI-U index is calculated by summing the 12 most recently available monthly CPI-U values from the date of the rate adjustment filing and dividing the sum by 12 (Recent Average). Second, the partial year limitation is then calculated by dividing the Recent Average by the Recent Average from the most recent previous rate adjustment filing (Previous Recent Average) applicable to each affected class of mail and subtracting 1 from the quotient. The result is expressed as a percentage, rounded to three decimal places.
(c) The formula for calculating the partial year limitation for a rate adjustment filing filed less than 12 months after the last rate adjustment filing is as follows: Partial Year Limitation = (Recent Average/Previous Recent Average)−1.
(a) This subpart allocates rate authority to address the effects of decreases in the density of mail as measured by the sources identified in § 3010.161. The calculation of the additional rate authority corresponding to the change in density is described in § 3010.162.
(b) The Postal Service shall file a notice with the Commission by December 31 of each year that calculates the amount of density rate authority that is eligible to be authorized under this subpart.
(c) The Commission shall review the Postal Service's notice and determine how much, if any, rate authority will be authorized under this subpart. Any rate authority allocated under this subpart:
(1) Shall be made available to the Postal Service as of the date of the Commission's determination;
(2) Must be included in the calculation of the maximum rate adjustment authority in the first generally applicable rate adjustment filed after the Commission's determination;
(3) Shall lapse if unused, within 12 months of the Commission's determination; and
(4) May not be used to generate unused rate authority, nor shall it affect existing banked rate authority.
(a) The data needed for the calculation of the density rate authority in § 3010.162 shall be obtained from the values reported by the Postal Service as specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section. When both originally filed and annually revised data are available, the originally filed data shall be used. When the originally filed data are corrected through a refiling or in the Commission's Annual Compliance Determination report, the corrected version of the originally filed data shall be used.
(b) Market dominant volume and total volume from the Revenue, Pieces, and Weight report, filed by the Postal Service under § 3050.25 of this chapter;
(c) Institutional costs and total costs from the Cost and Revenue Analysis report, filed with the Postal Service's section 3652 report; and
(d) The number of delivery points, from the input data used to produce the Total Factor Productivity estimates, filed with the Postal Service's section 3652 report.
(a)
Density rate authority = the greater of 0 and
(2) The formula for calculating the percentage change in density, in conformance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, is as follows:
Percentage change in density from prior fiscal year =
(b)
(2) The percentage change in density from the prior fiscal year shall be calculated as the ratio of volume to delivery points for the most recently completed fiscal year, divided by the same ratio for the prior fiscal year, and subtracting 1 from the quotient. The result is expressed as a percentage, rounded to three decimal places. To ensure that decreases in competitive product volume will not result in the Postal Service receiving greater additional rate adjustment authority under this subpart, the percentage change in density shall be calculated two ways: Using market dominant volume and using total volume. The greater of the two results (not using absolute value) shall be used as the percentage change in density from the prior fiscal year.
(a) The definitions in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section apply to this subpart.
(b) “Amortization payments
(c) “Phase-in period” means the period of time spanning the fiscal years of issuance of the first five determinations following the effective date of this subpart, as specified by the timing provisions in § 3010.181.
(d) “Required minimum remittance” means the minimum amount the Postal Service is required to remit during a particular fiscal year, as calculated under § 3010.184.
(e) “Revenue collected under this subpart” means the amount of revenue collected during a fiscal year as a result of all previous rate increases authorized under this subpart, as calculated under § 3010.184.
(a) This subpart allocates additional rate authority to provide the Postal Service with revenue for remittance towards the statutorily mandated amortization payments for supplemental and unfunded liabilities identified in § 3010.182. As described in § 3010.184, for retirement obligation rate authority to be made available, the Postal Service must annually remit towards these amortization payments all revenue collected under this subpart previously. The full retirement obligation rate authority, calculated as described in § 3010.183, shall be phased in over 5 fiscal years, taking into account changes in volume during the phase-in period. If combined with an equal rate increase on Competitive products, the compounded rate increase resulting from retirement obligation rate authority is calculated to generate sufficient additional revenue at the end of the phase-in period to permit the Postal Service to remit the entire invoiced amount of its amortization payments.
(b) The Postal Service shall file a notice with the Commission by December 31 of each year, until the conclusion of the phase-in period, that calculates the amount of retirement obligation rate authority that is eligible to be authorized under this subpart.
(c) The Commission shall review the Postal Service's notice and determine how much, if any, rate authority will be authorized under this subpart. Any rate authority allocated under this subpart:
(1) Shall be made available to the Postal Service as of the date of the Commission's determination;
(2) Must be included in the calculation of the maximum rate adjustment authority in the first generally applicable rate adjustment filed after the Commission's determination;
(3) Shall lapse if not used in the first generally applicable rate adjustment filed after the Commission's determination;
(4) Shall lapse if unused, within 12 months of the Commission's determination; and
(5) May not be used to generate unused rate authority, nor shall it affect existing banked rate authority.
(a) The amounts of the amortization payments needed for the calculation of retirement obligation rate adjustment authority in § 3010.183 shall be obtained from notifications to the Postal Service by the Office of Personnel Management of annual determinations of the funding amounts specific to payments at the end of each fiscal year for Retiree Health Benefits as computed under 5 U.S.C. 8909a(d)(2)(B) and (d)(3)(B)(ii); the Civil Service Retirement System as computed under 5 U.S.C. 8348(h)(2)(B); and the Federal Employees Retirement System as computed under 5 U.S.C. 8423(b)(1)(B), (b)(2) and (b)(3)(B), filed with the Postal Service's section 3652 report.
(b) The values for market dominant revenue, total revenue and market dominant volumes needed for the calculation of retirement obligation rate authority in § 3010.183 shall be obtained from values reported in the Revenue, Pieces, and Weight report, filed by the Postal Service under § 3050.25 of this chapter.
(c) The values for additional rate authority previously provided under this subpart, if any, needed for the calculation of retirement obligation rate authority in § 3010.182 and the calculation of required minimum remittances under § 3010.183 shall be obtained from the Commission's prior determinations.
(a)
Additional rate authority in fiscal year T+1 =
(2) The formula for calculating the amount of previously authorized retirement obligation rate authority through fiscal year T, described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, is as follows:
Previously authorized retirement obligation rate authority through fiscal year T =
(c)
(2) The amount of previously authorized retirement obligation rate authority shall be calculated in two steps. First, the sums of 1 and the amount of retirement obligation rate authority authorized in each of the previous fiscal years shall be multiplied together. This product represents the compounded amount of such rate authority, expressed as a net rate increase. To express this product as a proportion of the market dominant rate base, the second step is to subtract the inverse of this product from 1.
(a)
(b)
Amount of revenue =
(2) The formula for calculating the prorated fraction of retirement obligation rate authority authorized in a particular fiscal year
Prorated fraction =
(c)
(2) The prorated fraction of retirement obligation rate authority authorized in a particular fiscal year that was in effect during the most recently completed fiscal year, as calculated by the formula in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, shall be a piecewise function of three parts. First, if the retirement obligation rate authority authorized in a particular year was not in effect during the most recently completed fiscal year, the prorated fraction shall be 0. Second, if the retirement obligation rate authority
(c) This proportion shall be calculated in four steps. First, the number of days of the fiscal quarter after and including the effective date of the price adjustment including the retirement obligation rate authority shall be divided by the total number of days in that fiscal quarter. This quotient determines the proportion of days in that quarter in which the higher rates were in effect. Second, that quotient shall be multiplied by the market dominant volume from that fiscal quarter to determine the amount of volume during the quarter receiving the higher rates. Third, that product shall be added to the market dominant volume from any subsequent quarters of the fiscal year because the volume in those quarters was also sent under the higher rates. Finally, this sum shall be divided by the total market dominant volume from the fiscal year to determine the proportion of annual volume sent after the rate increase went into effect.
(a) If any of the circumstances described in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section occur, the Postal Service shall not be eligible for future retirement obligation rate authority under this subpart, and the Commission may commence additional proceedings as appropriate.
(b) If, subsequent to 45 calendar days after the effective date of this subpart and prior to the end of the phase-in period, the Postal Service fails to timely file the notice required under § 3010.181(b);
(c) In any fiscal year in which retirement obligation rate authority was determined to be available under this subpart, the Postal Service fails to timely file under § 3010.122 for a rate increase including the full amount of retirement obligation rate authority authorized under this subpart during that fiscal year, to take effect prior to the end of that fiscal year; or
(d) In any fiscal year including or subsequent to the first fiscal year in which rate authority under this subpart was used to adjust market dominant rates, the Postal Service's total payments towards the supplemental and unfunded liabilities identified in § 3010.182 are not equal to or greater than the minimum remittance required for that fiscal year under § 3010.184(a).
(a) This subpart allocates performance-based rate authority of 1 percentage point for each class of mail, which is available upon meeting or exceeding both an operational efficiency-based requirement and adhering to a service standard-based requirement. This rate authority is allocated based on both meeting the operational efficiency-based requirement appearing in § 3010.201 and meeting the service standard-based requirement appearing in § 3010.202.
(b) The Postal Service shall file a notice with the Commission by December 31 of each year that demonstrates whether or not performance-based rate authority is eligible to be authorized under this subpart.
(c) The Commission shall review the Postal Service's notice and any challenges filed pursuant to § 3010.202(b) and announce how much, if any, rate authority will be authorized under this subpart. Any rate authority allocated under this subpart:
(1) Shall be made available to the Postal Service as of the date of the Commission's announcement;
(2) Must be included in the calculation of the maximum rate adjustment authority in the first generally applicable rate adjustment filed after the Commission's announcement;
(3) Shall lapse if unused, 12 months after the Commission's announcement; and
(4) May not be used to generate unused rate authority, nor shall it affect existing banked rate authority.
The operational efficiency-based requirement is met if the Postal Service's Total Factor Productivity for the measured fiscal year exceeds the previous fiscal year as determined by the Commission.
(a) The service standard-related criteria is met if all of the Postal Service's service standards (including applicable business rules) for that class during the applicable fiscal year meet or exceed the service standards in place for the prior fiscal year on a nationwide or substantially nationwide basis as determined by the Commission.
(b) Any interested person may file a challenge to the notice provided by the Postal Service under § 3010.200(b) by March 15 of each year. The scope of such a challenge shall be limited to whether or not the Postal Service's service standards (including applicable business rules) during the applicable fiscal year met or exceeded the service standards in place for the prior fiscal year on a nationwide or substantially nationwide basis. The Commission shall issue an order which rules on any challenge as soon as practicable.
This subpart is applicable to a class or product where the attributable cost for that class or product exceeded the revenue from that class or product as determined by the Commission. Section 3010.221 is applicable where the attributable cost for a product within a class exceeded the revenue from that particular product. Section 3010.222 is applicable where the attributable cost for an entire class exceeded the revenue from that class.
Whenever the Postal Service files a rate adjustment filing affecting a class of mail which includes a product where the attributable cost for that product exceeded the revenue from that product, as determined by the Commission, the Postal Service shall increase the rates for each non-compensatory product by a minimum of 2 percentage points above the percentage increase for that class. This section does not create additional rate authority applicable to any class of mail.
(a) This section provides 2 percentage points of additional rate authority for any class of mail where the attributable cost for that class exceeded the revenue from that class as determined by the Commission. This additional rate authority is optional and may be used at the Postal Service's discretion.
(b) The Commission shall announce how much, if any, rate authority will be authorized under this subpart. Any rate authority allocated under this subpart:
(1) Shall be made available to the Postal Service as of the date of the Commission's announcement;
(2) Must be included in the calculation of the maximum rate adjustment authority change in rates in the first generally applicable rate
(3) Shall lapse if unused, within 12 months of the Commission's announcement; and
(4) May not be used to generate unused rate authority, nor shall it affect existing banked rate authority.
Unless a specific exception applies, unused rate adjustment authority, on a class-by-class basis, shall be calculated for each rate adjustment filing. Unused rate adjustment authority shall be added to the schedule of banked rate authority in each instance, and be available for application to rate adjustments pursuant to the requirements of this subpart.
Upon the establishment of unused rate adjustment authority, the Postal Service shall devise and maintain a schedule that tracks the establishment and subsequent use of banked rate authority on a class-by-class basis. At a minimum, the schedule must track the amount of banked rate authority available immediately prior to the rate adjustment filing and the amount of banked rate authority available upon acceptance of the rates included in the rate adjustment filing. It shall also track all changes to the schedule, including the docket numbers of Commission decisions affecting the schedule, the dates and amounts that any rate authority was generated or subsequently expended, and the expiration dates of all rate adjustment authority. The schedule shall be included with any rate adjustment filing purporting to modify the amount of banked rate adjustment authority.
(a) When rate adjustment filings that involve a rate increase are filed 12 months apart or less, unused rate adjustment authority for a class is equal to the difference between the maximum rate adjustment authority as summarized by § 3010.127 and calculated pursuant to subparts C through H of this part, as appropriate, and the percentage change in rates for the class calculated pursuant to § 3010.128, subject to the limitations described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) Unused rate adjustment authority cannot be generated and is assumed to be 0 percent for classes subject to § 3010.222, Class requirement and additional class rate authority.
(c) For rate adjustment filings that involve a rate increase, unused rate adjustment authority cannot exceed the unused portion of rate authority calculated pursuant to subpart C of this part.
(a) When rate adjustment filings that involve a rate increase are filed more than 12 months apart, any interim rate adjustment authority must first be added to the schedule of banked rate authority before the unused rate adjustment authority is calculated.
(b) Interim rate adjustment authority for a class is equal to the Base Average applicable to the second rate adjustment filing (as developed pursuant to § 3010.142) divided by the Recent Average utilized in the first rate adjustment filing (as developed pursuant to § 3010.142) and subtracting 1 from the quotient. The result is expressed as a percentage and immediately added to the schedule of banked rate authority as of the date the rate adjustment filing is filed.
(c) Unused rate adjustment authority for a class is equal to the difference between the maximum rate adjustment authority as summarized by § 3010.127 and calculated pursuant to subparts C through H of this part, as appropriate, and the percentage change in rates for the class calculated pursuant to § 3010.128, subject to the limitations described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
(d) Unused rate adjustment authority cannot be generated and is assumed to be 0 percent for classes subject to § 3010.222, Class requirement and additional class rate authority.
(e) For rate adjustment filings that involve a rate increase, unused rate adjustment authority cannot exceed the unused portion of rate authority calculated pursuant to subpart C of this part.
(a) For rate adjustment filings that only include rate decreases, unused rate adjustment authority for a class is calculated in two steps. First, the difference between the maximum rate adjustment authority as summarized by § 3010.127 and calculated pursuant to subparts C through H of this part, as appropriate, for the most recent rate adjustment that involves a rate increase and the percentage change in rates for the class calculated pursuant to § 3010.128(d) is calculated. Second, the unused rate adjustment authority generated in the most recent rate adjustment that involves a rate increase is subtracted from that result.
(b) Unused rate adjustment authority generated under paragraph (a) of this section for a class shall be added to the unused rate adjustment authority generated in the most recent rate adjustment that involves a rate increase on the schedule maintained under § 3010.241. For purposes of § 3010.244, the unused rate adjustment authority generated under paragraph (a) of this section for a class shall be deemed to have been added to the schedule maintained under § 3010.241 on the same date as the most recent rate adjustment filing that involves a rate increase.
(c) For rate adjustment filings that only include rate decreases, the sum of unused rate adjustment authority generated under paragraph (a) of this section and the unused rate adjustment authority generated in the most recent rate adjustment that involves a rate increase cannot exceed the unused portion of rate adjustment authority calculated pursuant to subpart C of this part in the most recent rate adjustment that involves a rate increase.
(d) Unused rate adjustment authority generated under paragraph (a) of this section shall be subject to the limitation under § 3010.245, regardless of whether it is used alone or in combination with other existing unused rate adjustment authority.
(e) For rate adjustment filings that only include rate decreases, unused rate adjustment authority generated under this section lapses 5 years from the date of filing of the most recent rate adjustment filing that involves a rate increase.
(f) A rate adjustment filing that only includes rate decreases that is filed immediately after a rate adjustment due to extraordinary or exceptional circumstances (
(a) Banked rate authority may be applied to any planned rate adjustment subject to the limitations appearing in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section.
(b) Banked rate authority may only be applied to a proposal to adjust rates
(c) A maximum of 2 percentage points of banked rate authority may be applied to a rate adjustment for any class in any 12-month period. If banked rate authority is used, it shall be subtracted from the schedule of banked rate adjustment authority as of the date of the final order accepting the rates.
(d) Subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, interim rate adjustment authority may be used to make a rate adjustment pursuant to the rate adjustment filing that led to its calculation. If interim rate adjustment authority is used to make such a rate adjustment, the interim rate adjustment authority generated pursuant to the rate adjustment filing shall first be added to the schedule of banked rate adjustment authority pursuant to § 3010.241 as the most recent entry. Then, any interim rate adjustment authority used in accordance with this paragraph shall be subtracted from the existing banked rate adjustment authority using a first-in, first-out (FIFO) method, beginning 5 years before the instant rate adjustment filing.
(e) Banked rate authority for a class must be applied, using a first-in, first-out (FIFO) method, beginning 5 years before the instant rate adjustment filing.
(f) Banked rate adjustment authority calculated under this section shall lapse 5 years from the date of the rate adjustment filing leading to its calculation.
The Postal Service may request to adjust rates for market dominant products due to extraordinary or exceptional circumstances pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(1)(E). The rate adjustments are not subject to rate adjustment limitations or the restrictions on the use of unused rate adjustment authority. The rate adjustment request may not include material classification changes. The request is subject to public participation and Commission review within 90 days.
(a) Each exigent request shall include the items specified in paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section.
(b) A schedule of the planned rates.
(c) Calculations quantifying the increase for each affected product and class.
(d) A full discussion of the extraordinary or exceptional circumstances giving rise to the request, and a complete explanation of how both the requested overall increase and the specific rate adjustments requested relate to those circumstances.
(e) A full discussion of why the requested rate adjustments are necessary to enable the Postal Service, under best practices of honest, efficient, and economical management, to maintain and continue the development of postal services of the kind and quality adapted to the needs of the United States.
(f) A full discussion of why the requested rate adjustments are reasonable and equitable as among types of users of market dominant products.
(g) An explanation of when, or under what circumstances, the Postal Service expects to be able to rescind the exigent rate adjustments in whole or in part.
(h) An analysis of the circumstances giving rise to the exigent request, which should, if applicable, include a discussion of whether the circumstances were foreseeable or could have been avoided by reasonable prior action.
(i) Such other information as the Postal Service believes will assist the Commission in issuing a timely determination of whether the requested rate adjustments are consistent with applicable statutory policies.
The Commission may require the Postal Service to provide clarification of its request or to provide additional information in order to gain a better understanding of the circumstances leading to the request or the justification for the specific rate adjustments requested. The Postal Service shall include within its request the identification of one or more knowledgeable Postal Service official(s) who will be available to provide prompt responses to Commission requests for clarification or additional information.
(a) The Commission will establish a docket for each request to adjust rates due to extraordinary or exceptional circumstances, publish notice of the request in the
(b) The general nature of the proceeding.
(c) A reference to legal authority under which the proceeding is to be conducted.
(d) A concise description of the proposals for changes in rates, fees, and the Mail Classification Schedule.
(e) The identification of an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the docket.
(f) A specified period for public comment.
(g) Such other information as the Commission deems appropriate.
(a) The Commission will hold a public hearing on the Postal Service's request. During the public hearing, responsible Postal Service officials will appear and respond under oath to questions from the Commissioners or their designees addressing previously identified aspects of the Postal Service's request and supporting information.
(b) Interested persons will be given an opportunity to submit to the Commission suggested relevant questions that might be posed during the public hearing. Such questions, and any explanatory materials submitted to clarify the purpose of the questions, should be filed in accordance with § 3001.9 of this chapter, and will become part of the administrative record of the proceeding.
(c) The timing and length of the public hearing will depend on the nature of the circumstances giving rise to the request and the clarity and completeness of the supporting materials provided with the request.
(d) If the Postal Service is unable to provide adequate explanations during the public hearing, supplementary written or oral responses may be required.
(a) Following the conclusion of the public hearings and submission of any supplementary materials, interested persons will be given the opportunity to submit written comments on:
(1) The sufficiency of the justification for an exigent rate adjustment;
(2) The adequacy of the justification for adjustments in the amounts requested by the Postal Service; and
(3) Whether the specific rate adjustments requested are reasonable and equitable.
(b) An opportunity to submit written reply comments will be given to the Postal Service and other interested persons.
Requests under this subpart seek rate relief required by extraordinary or exceptional circumstances and will be
(a) Each request will identify the banked rate adjustment authority available as of the date of the request for each class of mail and the available amount for each of the preceding 5 years.
(b) Rate adjustments may use existing banked rate adjustment authority in amounts greater than the limitations described in § 3010.245.
(c) Increases will exhaust all banked rate adjustment authority for each class of mail before imposing additional rate adjustments in excess of the maximum rate adjustment for any class of mail.
This subpart is applicable whenever the Postal Service proposes to adjust a rate associated with a workshare discount. For the purpose of this subpart, the cost avoided by the Postal Service for not providing the applicable service refers to the amount identified in the most recently applicable Annual Compliance Determination, unless the Commission otherwise provides.
For the purpose of this subpart, the percentage passthrough for any workshare discount shall be calculated by dividing the workshare discount by the cost avoided by the Postal Service for not providing the applicable service and expressing the result as a percentage.
(a) For a workshare discount that is equal to the cost avoided by the Postal Service for not providing the applicable service, no proposal to adjust a rate associated with that workshare discount may change the size of the discount.
(b) For a workshare discount that exceeds the cost avoided by the Postal Service for not providing the applicable service, no proposal to adjust a rate associated with that workshare discount may increase the size of the discount.
(c) For a workshare discount that is less than the cost avoided by the Postal Service for not providing the applicable service, no proposal to adjust a rate associated with that workshare discount may decrease the size of the discount.
(a) No proposal to adjust a rate may set a workshare discount that would exceed the cost avoided by the Postal Service for not providing the applicable service, unless at least one of the following reasons provided in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section applies.
(b) The proposed workshare discount is associated with a new postal service, a change to an existing postal service, or a new workshare initiative.
(c) The proposed workshare discount is a minimum of 20 percent less than the existing workshare discount.
(d) The proposed workshare discount is set in accordance with a Commission order issued pursuant to § 3010.286.
(e) The proposed workshare discount is provided in connection with a subclass of mail, consisting exclusively of mail matter of educational, cultural, scientific, or informational value (39 U.S.C. 3622(e)(2)(C)) and is in compliance with § 3010.285(c).
(a) No proposal to adjust a rate may set a workshare discount that would be below the cost avoided by the Postal Service for not providing the applicable service, unless at least one of the following reasons provided in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section applies.
(b) The proposed workshare discount is associated with a new postal service, a change to an existing postal service, or a new workshare initiative.
(c) The proposed workshare discount is a minimum of 20 percent more than the existing workshare discount.
(d) The proposed workshare discount is set in accordance with a Commission order issued pursuant to § 3010.286.
(e) The percentage passthrough for the proposed workshare discount is at least 85 percent.
(a) Each proposal to adjust a rate associated with a workshare discount shall be supported by substantial evidence and demonstrate that each proposed workshare discount has been set in compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3622(e) and this subpart. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
(b) For each proposed workshare discount that would exceed the cost avoided by the Postal Service for not providing the applicable service, the rate adjustment filing shall indicate the applicable paragraph of § 3010.283 under which the Postal Service is justifying the excessive discount and include any relevant analysis supporting the claim.
(c) For each proposed workshare discount that is provided in connection with a subclass of mail, consisting exclusively of mail matter of educational, cultural, scientific, or informational value (39 U.S.C. 3622(e)(2)(C)), would exceed the cost avoided by the Postal Service for not providing the applicable service, and would not be set in accordance with at least one specific provision appearing in § 3010.283(b) through (d), the rate adjustment filing shall provide the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) The number of mail owners receiving the workshare discount during the most recent full fiscal year and for the current fiscal year to date;
(2) The number of mail owners for the applicable product or products in the most recent full fiscal year and for the current fiscal year to date; and
(3) An explanation of how the proposed workshare discount would promote the public interest, even though the proposed workshare discount would substantially exceed the cost avoided by the Postal Service.
(d) For each proposed workshare discount that would be below the cost avoided by the Postal Service for not providing the applicable service, the rate adjustment filing shall indicate the applicable paragraph of § 3010.284 under which the Postal Service is justifying the discount that is below the cost avoided and include any relevant analysis supporting the claim.
(a) In every instance in which the Postal Service determines to adjust a rate associated with a workshare discount in a manner that does not comply with the limitations imposed by §§ 3010.283 through 3010.284, the Postal Service shall file an application for waiver. The Postal Service must file any application for waiver at least 60 days prior to filing the proposal to adjust a rate associated with the applicable workshare discount. In its application for waiver, the Postal Service shall indicate the approximate filing date for its next rate adjustment filing.
(b) The application for waiver shall be supported by a preponderance of the
(c) The application for waiver shall include a specific and detailed statement signed by one or more knowledgeable Postal Service official(s) who sponsors the application and attests to the accuracy of the information contained within the statement. The statement shall set forth the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this section, as applicable to the specific workshare discount for which a waiver is sought:
(1) The reason(s) why a waiver is alleged to be necessary (with justification thereof), including all relevant supporting analysis and all assumptions relied upon.
(2) The length of time for which a waiver is alleged to be necessary (with justification thereof).
(3) For each subsequent rate adjustment filing planned to occur during the length of time for which a waiver is sought, a representation of the proposed minimum amount of the change to the workshare discount.
(4) For a claim that the amount of the workshare discount exceeding the cost avoided by the Postal Service for not providing the applicable service is necessary in order to mitigate rate shock (39 U.S.C. 3622(e)(2)(B)), the Postal Service shall provide an explanation addressing all of the items specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section:
(i) A description of the customers that the Postal Service claims would be adversely affected.
(ii) Prices and volumes for the workshare discount at issue (the benchmark and workshared mail category) for the last 10 years.
(iii) Quantitative analysis or, if not available, qualitative analysis indicating the nature and extent of the likely harm to the customers that would result from setting the workshare discount in compliance with § 3010.283(c).
(5) For a claim that setting an excessive or low workshare discount closer or equal to the cost avoided by the Postal Service for not providing the applicable service would impede the efficient operation of the Postal Service, the Postal Service shall provide an explanation addressing all of the items specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section:
(i) A description of the operational strategy at issue.
(ii) Quantitative analysis or, if not available, qualitative analysis indicating how the workshare discount at issue is related to that operational strategy.
(iii) How setting the workshare discount in compliance with § 3010.283(c) or § 3010.284(c), whichever is applicable, would impede that operational strategy.
(6) For a claim that reducing or eliminating the excessive workshare discount would lead to a loss of volume in the affected category of mail and reduce the aggregate contribution to the Postal Service's institutional costs from the mail that is subject to the discount (39 U.S.C. 3622(e)(3)(A)), the Postal Service shall provide an explanation addressing all of the items specified in paragraphs (c)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section:
(i) A description of the affected category of mail.
(ii) Quantitative analysis or, if not available, qualitative analysis indicating the expected loss of volume and reduced contribution that is claimed would result from reducing or eliminating the excessive workshare discount.
(iii) How setting the excessive workshare discount in compliance with § 3010.283(c) would lead to the expected loss of volume and reduced contribution.
(7) For a claim that reducing or eliminating the excessive workshare discount would result in a further increase in the rates paid by mailers not able to take advantage of the workshare discount (39 U.S.C. 3622(e)(3)(B)), the Postal Service shall provide an explanation addressing all of the items specified in paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section:
(i) A description of the mailers not able to take advantage of the discount.
(ii) Quantitative analysis or, if not available, qualitative analysis indicating the expected size of the rate increase that is claimed would result in the rates paid by mailers not able to take advantage of the discount.
(iii) How setting the excessive workshare discount in compliance with § 3010.283(c) would result in a further increase in the rates paid by mailers not able to take advantage of the discount.
(8) Any other relevant factors or reasons to support the application for waiver.
(d) Unless the Commission otherwise provides, commenters will be given at least 7 calendar days to respond to the application for waiver after it has been filed by the Postal Service.
(e) To better evaluate the waiver application, the Commission may, on its own behalf or by request of any interested person, order the Postal Service to provide experts on the subject matter of the waiver application to participate in technical conferences, prepare statements clarifying or supplementing their views, or answer questions posed by the Commission or its representatives.
(f) For a proposed workshare discount that would exceed the cost avoided by the Postal Service for not providing the applicable service, the application for waiver shall be granted only if at least one provision appearing in 39 U.S.C. 3622(e)(2)(A) through (e)(2)(D) or 39 U.S.C. 3622(e)(3)(A) through (e)(3)(B) is determined to apply.
(g) For a proposed workshare discount that would be set below the cost avoided by the Postal Service for not providing the applicable service, the application for waiver shall be granted only if setting the workshare discount closer or equal to the cost avoided by the Postal Service for not providing the applicable service would impede the efficient operation of the Postal Service.
(h) The Commission will issue an order announcing, at a minimum, whether the requested waiver will be granted or denied no later than 21 days following the close of any comment period(s). An order granting the application for waiver shall specify all conditions upon which the waiver is granted, including the date upon which the waiver shall expire.
39 U.S.C. 503; 3622; 3631; 3642; 3682.
(a) Explain the reason for initiating the docket and explain why the change is not inconsistent with the applicable requirements of this part and any applicable Commission directives and orders;
(b) Explain why, as to market dominant products, the change is not inconsistent with the policies and the applicable criteria of chapter 36 of title 39 of the United States Code;
(a) Explain the reason for initiating the docket and explain why the change is not inconsistent with the applicable
(b) Explain why, as to market dominant products, the change is not inconsistent with the policies and the applicable criteria of chapter 36 of title 39 of the United States Code;
(a) Explain the reason for initiating the docket and explain why the change is not inconsistent with the applicable requirements of this part and any applicable Commission directives and orders;
(b) Explain why, as to market dominant products, the change is not inconsistent with the policies and the applicable criteria of chapter 36 of title 39 of the United States Code;
(b)(1) As to market dominant products, explain why the changes are not inconsistent with the policies and the applicable criteria of chapter 36 of title 39 of the United States Code, the applicable requirements of this part, and any applicable Commission directives and orders; or
(e) Provide interested persons with an opportunity to comment on whether the proposed changes are consistent with the policies and the applicable criteria of chapter 36 of title 39 of the United States Code, the applicable requirements of this part, and any applicable Commission directives and orders.
(c) * * *
(2) Explain why the proposed corrections are consistent with the policies and the applicable criteria of chapter 36 of title 39 of the United States Code, the applicable requirements of this part, and any applicable Commission directives and orders; and
(e) Provide interested persons with an opportunity to comment on whether the proposed corrections are consistent with the policies and the applicable criteria of chapter 36 of title 39 of the United States Code, the applicable requirements of this part, and any applicable Commission directives and orders.
This subpart imposes additional requirements whenever there is a request to add a negotiated service agreement to the market dominant product list. The additional supporting justification appearing in § 3020.121 also should be provided whenever the Postal Service proposes to modify the terms of an existing market dominant negotiated service agreement. Commission findings that the addition of a special classification is not inconsistent with 39 U.S.C. 3622 are provisional and subject to subsequent review. No rate(s) shall take effect until 45 days after the Postal Service files a request for review of a notice of a new rate or rate(s) adjustment specifying the rate(s) and the effective date.
(a) Each request shall also include the items specified in paragraphs (b) through (j) of this section.
(b) A copy of the negotiated service agreement.
(c) The planned effective date(s) of the planned rates.
(d) The identity of a responsible Postal Service official who will be available to provide prompt responses to requests for clarification from the Commission.
(e) A statement identifying all parties to the agreement and a description clearly explaining the operative components of the agreement.
(f) Details regarding the expected improvements in the net financial position or operations of the Postal Service (39 U.S.C. 3622(c)(10)(A)(i) and (ii)). The projection of the change in net financial position as a result of the agreement shall be based on accepted analytical principles. The projection of the change in net financial position as a result of the agreement shall include for each year of the agreement:
(1) The estimated mailer-specific costs, volumes, and revenues of the Postal Service absent the implementation of the negotiated service agreement;
(2) The estimated mailer-specific costs, volumes, and revenues of the Postal Service which result from implementation of the negotiated service agreement;
(3) An analysis of the effects of the negotiated service agreement on the contribution to institutional costs from mailers not party to the agreement;
(4) If mailer-specific costs are not available, the source and derivation of the costs that are used shall be provided, together with a discussion of the currency and reliability of those costs and their suitability as a proxy for the mailer-specific costs; and
(5) If the Postal Service believes the Commission's accepted analytical principles are not the most accurate and reliable methodology available:
(i) An explanation of the basis for that belief; and
(ii) A projection of the change in net financial position resulting from the agreement made using the Postal Service's alternative methodology.
(g) An identification of each component of the agreement expected to enhance the performance of mail preparation, processing, transportation, or other functions in each year of the agreement, and a discussion of the nature and expected impact of each such enhancement.
(h) Details regarding any and all actions (performed or to be performed) to assure that the agreement will not result in unreasonable harm to the marketplace (39 U.S.C. 3622(c)(10)(B)).
(i) A discussion in regard to how functionally similar negotiated service agreements will be made available on public and reasonable terms to similarly situated mailers.
(j) Such other information as the Postal Service believes will assist the Commission in issuing a timely determination of whether the requested changes are consistent with applicable statutory policies.
(a) The Postal Service shall include with any request concerning a negotiated service agreement a detailed plan for providing data or information on actual experience under the agreement sufficient to allow evaluation of whether the negotiated service agreement operates in compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3622(c)(10).
(b) A data report under the plan is due 60 days after each anniversary date of implementation and shall include, at a minimum, the following information for each 12-month period the agreement has been in effect:
(1) The change in net financial position of the Postal Service as a result of the agreement. This calculation shall include for each year of the agreement:
(i) The actual mailer-specific costs, volumes, and revenues of the Postal Service;
(ii) An analysis of the effects of the negotiated service agreement on the net overall contribution to the institutional costs of the Postal Service; and
(iii) If mailer-specific costs are not available, the source and derivation of the costs that are used shall be provided, including a discussion of the currency and reliability of those costs and their suitability as a proxy for the mailer-specific costs.
(2) A discussion of the changes in operations of the Postal Service that have resulted from the agreement. This shall include, for each year of the agreement, identification of each component of the agreement known to enhance the performance of mail preparation, processing, transportation, or other functions in each year of the agreement.
(3) An analysis of the impact of the negotiated service agreement on the marketplace, including a discussion of any and all actions taken to protect the marketplace from unreasonable harm.
39 U.S.C. 503; 3651; 3652; 3653.
(c) It shall address such matters as non-compensatory rates and failures to achieve stated goals for on-time delivery standards. A more detailed analysis is required when the Commission observed and commented upon the same matter in its Annual Compliance Determination for the previous fiscal year.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) No later than 90 days after the close of each fiscal year, the Postal Service shall submit a report to the Commission analyzing its cost, volume, revenue, rate, and service information in sufficient detail to demonstrate that all products during such year comply with all applicable provisions of title 39 of the United States Code. The report shall provide the items in paragraphs (b) through (o) of this section.
(e) For each market dominant workshare discount offered during the reporting year:
(1) The per-item cost avoided by the Postal Service by virtue of such discount;
(2) The percentage of such per-item cost avoided that the per-item workshare discount represents;
(3) The per-item contribution made to institutional costs;
(4) The factual and analytical bases for any claim that one or more of the exception provisions of 39 U.S.C. 3622(e)(2)(A) through (e)(2)(D) or 39 U.S.C. 3622(e)(3)(A) through (e)(3)(B) apply; and
(5) For each workshare discount that is provided in connection with a subclass of mail, consisting exclusively of mail matter of educational, cultural, scientific, or informational value (39 U.S.C. 3622(e)(2)(C)), exceeded the cost avoided by the Postal Service for not providing the applicable service, and was not set in accordance with at least one specific provision appearing in § 3010.262(b) through (d) of this chapter, the information specified in paragraphs (5)(i) through (iii) of this section:
(i) The number of mail owners receiving the workshare discount;
(ii) The number of mail owners for the applicable product or products; and
(iii) An explanation of how the workshare discount promotes the public interest, even though the workshare discount substantially exceeds the cost avoided by the Postal Service.
(l) For the Inbound Letter Post product, provide revenue, volume, attributable cost, and contribution data by Universal Postal Union country group and by shape for the fiscal year subject to review and each of the preceding 4 fiscal years;
(m) Input data and calculations used to produce the annual Total Factor Productivity estimates;
(n) Copies of notifications to the Postal Service by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) of annual determinations of the funding amounts specific to payments at the end of each fiscal year computed under 5 U.S.C. 8909a(d)(2)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 8909a(d)(3)(B)(ii); 5 U.S.C. 8348(h)(2)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 8423(b)(3)(B); 5 U.S.C. 8423(b)(1)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 8423(b)(2); and
(o) Provide any other information that the Postal Service believes will help the Commission evaluate the Postal Service's compliance with the applicable provisions of title 39 of the United States Code.
(a) The reports in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section shall be filed with the Commission at the times indicated.
(b) Within 95 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Postal Service shall file a financial report that analyzes cost data from the fiscal year. For purposes of this paragraph, the percentage change shall compare the fiscal year under review to the previous fiscal year. At a minimum, the report shall include:
(1) For all market dominant mail, the percentage change in total unit attributable cost;
(2) For each market dominant mail product, the percentage change in unit attributable cost;
(3) For the system as a whole, total average cost per piece, which includes all Postal Service competitive and market dominant attributable costs and institutional costs,
(4) The percentage change in total average cost per piece;
(5) Market dominant unit attributable cost by product;
(6) If the percentage change in unit attributable cost for a market dominant mail product is more than 0.0 percent and exceeds the percentage change in total market dominant mail unit attributable cost, then the following information shall be provided:
(i) Unit attributable cost workpapers for the product disaggregated into the following cost categories: Mail processing unit cost, delivery unit cost, vehicle service driver unit cost, purchased transportation unit cost, window service unit cost, and other unit cost;
(ii) A narrative that identifies cost categories that are driving above average increases in unit attributable cost for the product and explains the reason for the above-average increase; and
(iii) A specific plan to reduce unit attributable cost for the product.
(7) An analysis of volume trends and mail mix changes for each market dominant mail product from fiscal year 2017 through the end of the fiscal year under review, which shall include at a minimum:
(i) A comparison of actual unit attributable costs and estimated unit attributable costs for each market dominant mail product, using the volume distribution from fiscal year 2017;
(ii) A narrative that identifies the drivers of change in volume trends and the mail mix; and
(iii) A narrative that explains the methodology used to calculate the estimated unit attributable costs as required by paragraph (b)(7)(i) of this section.
(c) Within 95 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Postal Service shall file a report with analysis of each planned cost reduction initiative that is expected to require Postal Service total expenditures of $5 million or more over the duration of the initiative. At a minimum, the report shall include:
(1) A narrative that describes each cost reduction initiative planned for future fiscal years, including the status, the expected total expenditure, start date, end date, and any intermediate deadlines;
(2) Identification of a metric to measure the impact of each planned cost reduction initiative identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, a narrative describing the selected metric, a narrative explaining the reason for selecting that metric, and a schedule approximating the months and fiscal years in which the cost reduction impact is expected to be measureable;
(3) Estimates of the expected impact of each planned cost reduction initiative, with supporting workpapers, using the metric identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, total market dominant mail attributable unit cost, and total unit cost as calculated pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(d) Within 95 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Postal Service shall file a report that describes each active cost reduction initiative during the fiscal year which incurred or is expected to incur Postal Service expenditures of $5 million or more over the duration of the initiative. At a minimum, the report shall include:
(1) The information described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section, based on actual data for the fiscal year, and a specific statement as to whether the initiative actually achieved the expected impact as measured by the selected metric;
(2) An explanation of the trends, changes, or other reasons that caused any variance between the actual information provided under paragraph (d)(1) of this section and the estimated information previously provided under paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section, if applicable;
(3) A description of any mid-implementation adjustments the Postal Service has taken or will take to align the impacts with the schedule; and
(4) Any revisions to the schedule of cost reduction impacts for future fiscal years.
(e) Within 95 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Postal Service shall file a report that summarizes all projects associated with a Decision Analysis Report for the fiscal year. At a minimum, the report shall include:
(1) A description of each project;
(2) The status of each project;
(3) An estimate of cost savings or additional revenues from each project; and
(4) The return on investment expected from each project.
(f) Within 95 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Postal Service shall file a report that summarizes all planned projects that will require a Decision Analysis Report in the next fiscal year. At a minimum, the report shall include:
(1) A description of each planned project;
(2) The status of each project;
(3) An estimate of the cost savings or additional revenues expected from each project; and
(4) The return on investment expected from each project.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) The reports in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section shall be provided at the times indicated.
39 U.S.C. 503; 3622(a); 3652(d) and (e); 3657(c).
(c) The applicable service standard(s) for each product. If there has been a change to a service standard(s) since the previous report, a description of and reason for the change shall be provided. If there have been no changes to service standard(s) since the previous report, a certification stating this fact shall be provided.
By the Commission.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
This Notice announces that the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (Agency) is accepting applications for the Value-Added Producer Grant (VAPG) program. Approximately $37 million is currently available. The Agency may also utilize any funding that become available after publishing this notice. The Agency will publish the program funding level on the Rural Development website (
You must submit your application by March 10, 2020 or it will not be considered for funding. Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped or sent overnight by this date. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date. Electronic applications are permitted via
You should contact your USDA Rural Development State Office if you have questions about eligibility or submission requirements. You are encouraged to contact your State Office well in advance of the application deadline to discuss your project and to ask any questions about the application process. Application materials are available at
If you want to submit an electronic application, follow the instructions for the VAPG funding announcement on
Grants Division, Cooperative Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, MS 3253, Room 4008-South, Washington, DC 20250-3253, or call 202-690-1374.
The Agency encourages applications that will support recommendations made in the Rural Prosperity Task Force report to help improve life in rural America.
Key strategies include:
Please note the following:
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the paperwork burden associated with this Notice has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0570-0039.
The VAPG program is authorized under section 231 of the Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-224), as amended by section 10102 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-334) (see 7 U.S.C. 1621
The objective of this grant program is to assist viable Independent Producers, Agricultural Producer Groups, Farmer and Rancher Cooperatives, and Majority-Controlled Producer-Based Businesses in starting or expanding
Funding priority will be made available to Beginning Farmers and Ranchers, Veteran Farmers and Ranchers, Socially-Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, Operators of Small and Medium-Sized Farms and Ranches structured as Family Farms or Ranches, Farmer or Rancher Cooperatives, and projects proposing to develop a Mid-Tier Value Chain. See 7 CFR 4284.923 for Reserved Funds eligibility and 7 CFR 4284.924 for Priority Scoring eligibility.
The following term is incorporated from Section 10102 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. Majority Controlled Producer-Based Business venture means a venture greater than 50 percent of the ownership and control of which is held by—
“(i) 1 or more producers; or
“(ii) 1 or more entities, 100 percent of the ownership and control of which is held by 1 or more producers. The term `entity' means—
“(i) a partnership;
“(ii) a limited liability corporation;
“(iii) a limited liability partnership; and
“(iv) a corporation.
Also, Market Expansion Project means a project in which the Independent Producer applicant seeks to expand the market for an existing value-added product (produced and marketed by the applicant for at least 2 years at time of application) through sales to demonstrably new markets or to new customers in existing markets.
Additional terms you need to understand are defined in 7 CFR 4284.902.
Applicants must comply with the program regulation 7 CFR part 4284 subpart J to meet all the following eligibility requirements. Required documentation is included in the application package. Applications which fail to meet any of these requirements by the application deadline will be deemed ineligible and will not be evaluated further.
You must demonstrate within the application narrative that you meet all the applicant eligibility requirements of 7 CFR 4284.920 and 4284.921. This includes meeting the definition requirements at 7 CFR 4284.902 by demonstrating how you meet the definition for Agricultural Producer (
Federally-recognized Tribes and tribal entities must demonstrate that they meet the definition requirements for one of the four eligible applicant types. Rural Development State Offices and posted application toolkits will provide additional information on Tribal eligibility.
Per 4284.921, an applicant is ineligible if they have been debarred or suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension.” The Agency will check the System for Award Management (SAM) to determine if the applicant has been debarred or suspended. In addition, an applicant will be considered ineligible for a grant due to an outstanding judgment obtained by the U.S. in a Federal Court (other than U.S. Tax Court), is delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or is delinquent on Federal debt. The applicant must certify as part of the application that they do not have an outstanding judgment against them. The Agency will check the Credit Alert Interactive Voice Response System (CAIVRS) to verify this.
Per the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141) or successor appropriations act, any corporation (i) that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months or (ii) that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance provided with funds appropriated by, unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
Per 4284.905(a), Applicants must comply with other applicable Federal laws. Applicants who are proposing working capital grants to produce and market value-added products in the industries of wine, beer, distilled spirits or other alcoholic merchandise must comply with Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) regulations, including but not limited to permitting, filing of taxes and operational reports. Please visit TTB's website at
An Applicant may submit only one application in response to a solicitation and must explicitly direct that it competes in either the general funds competition or in one of the named reserved funds competitions. Multiple applications from separate entities with identical or greater than 75 percent common ownership, or from a parent, subsidiary or affiliated organization (with “affiliation” defined by Small Business Administration regulation 13 CFR 121.103, or successor regulation) are not permitted. Further, Applicants who have already received a Planning Grant for the proposed project cannot receive another Planning Grant for the same project. Applicants who have already received a Working Capital Grant for the proposed project cannot receive any additional grants for that project (Proposals from previous award recipients should be substantially different in terms of products and/or markets and should not merely be extensions of previously funded projects).
There is a matching fund (cost-sharing) requirement of at least $1 for every $1 in grant funds provided by the Agency (matching funds plus grant funds must equal proposed Total Project Cost). Matching funds may be in the form of cash or eligible in-kind contributions. Matching contributions and grant funds may be used only for eligible project purposes, including any contributions exceeding the minimum amount required. Applicant matching contributions in the form of raw commodity, time contributed to the project, or goods or services for which no out-of-pocket expenditure is made during the grant period, must be characterized as in-kind contributions. Donations of goods and service from third-parties must be characterized as in-kind contributions. Tribal applicants may utilize grants made available under Public Law 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, as their matching contribution, and should check with appropriate tribal authorities regarding the availability of such funding.
Matching funds must be available at time of application and must be certified and verified as described in 7 CFR 4284.931(b)(3) and (4). Do not include
You must demonstrate within the application narrative that you meet all the project eligibility requirements of 7 CFR 4284.922.
(a)
In addition, per the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, working capital applications must include a statement describing the direct or indirect producer benefits intended to result from the proposed project within a reasonable period of time after the receipt of a grant.
(b)
(1) Planning Grants. A planning grant is used to fund development of a defined program of economic planning activities to determine the viability of a potential value-added venture, specifically for paying a qualified consultant to conduct and develop a feasibility study, business plan, and/or marketing plan associated with the processing and/or marketing of a value-added agricultural product. Planning grant funds may not be used to fund working capital activities.
(2) Working Capital Grants. This type of grant provides funds to operate a value-added project, specifically to pay the eligible project expenses directly related to the processing and/or marketing of the value-added product that are eligible uses of grant funds. Working capital funds may not be used for planning purposes.
(c)
(d)
Priority points will also be awarded during the scoring process to eligible Agricultural Producer Groups, Farmer
Eligible uses of grant and matching funds are discussed, along with examples, in 7 CFR 4284.925. In general, grant and cost-share matching funds have the same use restrictions and must be used to fund only the costs for eligible purposes as defined at 7 CFR 4284.925(a) and (b).
Federal procurement standards prohibit transactions that involve a real or apparent Conflict of Interest for owners, employees, officers, agents, or their Immediate Family members having a personal, professional, financial or other interest in the outcome of the project; including organizational conflicts, and conflicts that restrict open and free competition for unrestrained trade. A list (not all-inclusive) of ineligible uses of grant and matching funds is found in 7 CFR 4284.926.
The application toolkit, regulation, and official program notification for this funding opportunity can be obtained online at
You may submit your application in paper form or electronically through
To apply electronically, you must follow the instructions for this funding announcement at
You can locate the
When you enter the
To use
You must submit all your application documents electronically through
After electronically applying through
If you want to submit a paper application, send it to the State Office located in the State where your project will primarily take place. You can find State Office Contact information at:
Your application must contain all the required forms and proposal elements described in 7 CFR 4284.931, unless otherwise clarified in this Notice. You are encouraged, but not required to utilize the Application Toolkits found at
• Standard Form (SF)-424, “Application for Federal Assistance,” to include your DUNS number and SAM (CAGE) code and expiration date (or evidence that you have begun the SAM registration process). Because there are no specific fields for a CAGE code and expiration date, you may identify them anywhere you want to on the form. If you do not include your DUNS number in your application, it will not be considered for funding.
• SF-424A, “Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs.” This form must be completed and submitted as part of the application package.
• SF-424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.” This form must be completed, signed, and submitted as part of the application package.
• Form AD-3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” if you are a corporation. A corporation is any entity that has filed articles of incorporation in one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the various territories of the United States including American Samoa, Guam, Midway Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. Corporations include both for profit and non-profit entities.
• You must certify that there are no current outstanding Federal judgments against your property and that you will not use grant funds to pay for any judgment obtained by the United States. You must also certify that you are not delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or any Federal debt. To satisfy the Certification requirement, you should include this statement in your application: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that the United States has not obtained an unsatisfied judgment against its property, is not delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or any Federal debt, and will not use grant funds to pay any judgments obtained by the United States.” A separate signature is not required.
You must provide a valid permit or evidence of having begun the permitting process if you are proposing a working capital grant to produce and market value-added products in the industries of wine, beer, distilled spirits or other alcoholic merchandise.
You must provide a valid producer license issued by a State, Tribe, or USDA, as applicable in accordance with 7 CFR part 990 if you are proposing to market value-added hemp products.
• Executive Summary and Abstract. A one-page Executive Summary containing the following information: legal name of applicant entity, application type (planning or working capital), applicant type, amount of grant request, a summary of your project, and whether you are submitting a simplified application, and whether you are requesting Reserved Funds. Also include a separate abstract of up to 100 words briefly describing your project.
• Eligibility discussion.
• Work plan and budget.
• Performance evaluation criteria.
• Proposal evaluation criteria.
• Certification and verification of matching funds.
• Reserved Funds and Priority Point documentation (as applicable).
• Feasibility studies, business plans, and/or marketing plans, as applicable.
Appendices containing required supporting documentation.
To be eligible (unless you are excepted under 2 CFR 25.110(b), (c) or (d), you are required to:
(a) Provide a valid DUNS number in your application, which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at (866) 705-5711;
(b) Register in SAM before submitting your application. You may register in SAM at no cost at
(c) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which you have an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.
If you have not fully complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM requirements, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and the Agency may use that determination as a basis for making an award to another applicant. Please refer to Section F. 2 for additional submission requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program.
Electronic applications must be received at
Executive Order (E.O.) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, applies to this program. This E.O. requires that Federal agencies provide opportunities for consultation on proposed assistance with State and local governments. Many States have established a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to facilitate this consultation. A list of States that maintain a SPOC may be obtained at
Funding limitations and reservations found in the program regulation at 7 CFR 4284.927 will apply, including:
(a) Use of Funds. Grant funds may be used to pay up to 50 percent of the total eligible project costs, subject to the limitations established for maximum total grant amount. Grant funds may not be used to pay any costs of the project incurred prior to the date of grant approval. Grant and matching funds may only be used for eligible purposes. (See examples of eligible and ineligible uses in 7 CFR 4284.925 and 4284.926, respectively).
(b) Grant Period (project period). Your project timeframe or grant period can be a maximum of 36 months in length from the date of award, depending on the complexity of your project. Your proposed grant period should begin no earlier than the anticipated award announcement date in this Notice and should end no later than 36 months following that date. If you receive an award, your grant period will be revised to begin on the actual date of award—the date the grant agreement is executed by the Agency—and your grant period end date will be adjusted accordingly. Your project activities should begin within 90 days of that date of award. The length of your grant period should be based on your project's complexity, as indicated in your application work plan. For example, it is expected that most planning grants can be completed within 12 months.
(c) Program Income. If income (Program Income) is earned during the grant period as a result of the project activities, it is subject to the requirements in 2 CFR 200.80, and must be managed and reported accordingly.
(d) Majority Controlled Producer-Based Business. The total amount of funds awarded to Majority Controlled Producer-Based Businesses in response to this announcement shall not exceed 10 percent of the total funds obligated for the program during the fiscal year.
(e) Reserved Funds. Ten percent of all funds available will be reserved to fund projects that benefit Beginning Farmers or Ranchers, Veteran Farmers or Ranchers or Socially- Disadvantaged Farmers or Ranchers. In addition, 10 percent of total funding available will be used to fund projects that propose development of Mid-Tier Value Chains as part of a Local or Regional Supply Chain Network. See related definitions in 7 CFR 4284.902. In addition, in accordance with Title VII, Section 750 of Public Law 115-30, 10 percent of FY 2019 funds will be allocated for assistance in persistent poverty counties. Any funds that become available after publishing this notice that will be allocated for assistance in persistent poverty counties will be identified by the Agency at a later date, after the applicable appropriations language has been enacted.
(f) Disposition of Reserved Funds Not Obligated. For this announcement, any reserved funds that have not been obligated by September 30, 2019, will be available to the Secretary to make VAPG grants in accordance with Section 210A(i)(3)(ii) of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018.
(a) National Environmental Policy Act.
This Notice has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, “Environmental Policies and Procedures,” and it has been determined that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required because the issuance of regulations and instructions, as well as amendments to them, describing administrative and financial procedures for processing, approving, and implementing the Agency's financial programs is categorically excluded in the Agency's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulation found at 7 CFR
The Agency will review each grant application to determine its compliance with 7 CFR part 1970 and whether proposed financial assistance by the Agency would have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on minority or low-income populations. The applicant may be asked to provide additional information or documentation to assist the Agency with this determination.
(b) Civil Rights Compliance Requirements.
All grants made under this Notice are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as required by the USDA (7 CFR part 15, subpart A) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Applications will be reviewed and processed as described at 7 CFR 4284.940. The Agency will review your application to determine if it is complete and eligible. If at any time, the Agency determines that your application is ineligible, you will be notified in writing as to the reasons it was determined ineligible and you will be informed of your review and appeal rights. Funding of successfully appealed applications will be limited to available funds.
The Agency will only score applications in which the applicant and project are eligible, which are complete and sufficiently responsive to program requirements, and in which the Agency agrees on the likelihood of financial feasibility for working capital requests. We will score your application according to the procedures and criteria specified in 7 CFR 4284.942, and with tiered scoring thresholds as specified below.
For each criterion, you must show how the project has merit and why it is likely to be successful. Your complete response to each criterion must be included in the body of the application, including summarizations of any feasibility studies, business and marketing plans. If you do not address all parts of the criterion, or do not sufficiently communicate relevant project information, you will receive lower scores. VAPG is a competitive program, so you will receive scores based on the quality of your responses. Simply addressing the criteria will not guarantee higher scores. The maximum number of points that can be awarded to your application is 100. For this announcement, the minimum score requirement for funding is 50 points.
The Agency application toolkit provides additional instruction to help you to respond to the criteria below.
(a)
For both planning and working capital grants, you must discuss the technological feasibility of the project, as well as operational efficiency, profitability, and overall economic sustainability resulting from the project. You must also demonstrate the potential for expanding the customer base for the agricultural commodity or value-added product, and the expected increase in revenue returns to the producer-owners providing the majority of the raw agricultural commodity to the project. Working capital applicants must also provide the potential number of jobs that will result from the project, along with a justifiable basis for these projections. Please see the application template for more information. All applicants must reference and summarize third-party data and other information that specifically supports your value-added project; discuss the value-added process you are proposing; potential markets and distribution channels; the value to be added to the raw commodity through the value-added process; cost and availability of inputs, your experience in marketing the proposed or similar product; business financial statements; and any other relevant information that supports the viability of your project. Working capital applicants should demonstrate that these outcomes will result from the project and include supportable projections of increase in customer base, revenue returned to producers and jobs resulting from the project in order to receive up to the maximum number of points. Planning grant applicants should describe the expected results, and the reasons supporting those expectations.
Points will be awarded as follows:
(1) 0 points will be awarded if you do not address the criterion.
(2) 1-5 points will be awarded if you do not address each of the following: technological feasibility, operational efficiency, profitability, and overall economic sustainability.
(3) 6-13 points will be awarded if you address technological feasibility, operational efficiency, profitability, and overall economic sustainability, but do not reference third-party information that supports the success of your project.
(4) 14-22 points will be awarded if you address technological feasibility, operational efficiency, profitability, and overall economic, supported by third-party information demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success.
(5) 23-30 points will be awarded if all criterion components are well addressed, supported by third-party information, and demonstrate a high likelihood of success.
(b)
You must identify all individuals who will be responsible for managing and completing the proposed tasks in the work plan, including the roles and activities that owners, staff, contractors, consultants or new hires may perform; and show that these individuals have the necessary qualifications and expertise, including those hired to do market or feasibility analyses, or to develop a business operations plan for the value-added venture. You must include the qualifications of those individuals responsible for leading or managing the total project (applicant owners or project managers), as well as those individuals responsible for conducting the various individual tasks in the work plan (such as consultants, contractors, staff or new hires). You must discuss the commitment and the availability of any consultants or other professionals to be hired for the project—especially those who may be consulting on multiple VAPG projects). If staff or consultants have not been selected at the time of application, you must provide specific descriptions of the qualifications required for the positions to be filled. Applications that demonstrate the strong credentials, education, capabilities, experience and availability of project personnel that will contribute to a high likelihood of project success will receive more points than those that demonstrate less potential for success in these areas.
Points will be awarded as follows:
(1) 0 points will be awarded if you do not address the criterion.
(2) 1-4 points will be awarded if qualifications and experience of all staff is not addressed and/or if necessary, qualifications of unfilled positions are not provided.
(3) 5-9 points will be awarded if all project personnel are identified but do not demonstrate qualifications or experience relevant to the project.
(4) 10-14 will be awarded if most key personnel demonstrate strong credentials and/or experience, and availability indicating a reasonable likelihood of success.
(5) 15-20 points will be awarded if all personnel demonstrate strong, relevant credentials or experience, and availability indicating a high likelihood of project success.
(c)
Producer, end-user, and third-party commitments will be evaluated under this criterion. Sole proprietors can receive a maximum of 9 points. Multiple producer applications can receive a maximum of 10 points.
(1) Producer commitments to the project will be evaluated based on the number of named and documented independent producers currently involved in the project; and the nature, level and quality of their contributions.
(2) End-user commitments will be evaluated based on potential or identified markets and the potential amount of output to be purchased, as indicated by letters of intent or contracts (purchase orders) from potential buyers referenced within the application. Applications that demonstrate documented intent to purchase the value-added product will receive more points. Note: For planning grants, this criterion can be addressed by evidence of interest or support from identified or potential customers.
(3) Third-party commitments to the project will be evaluated based on the critical and tangible nature of their contribution to the project, such as technical assistance, storage, processing, marketing, or distribution arrangements that are necessary for the project to proceed; and the level and quality of these contributions. Applications that demonstrate strong technical and logistical support to successfully complete the project will receive more points.
Letters of commitment by producers, end-users, and third-parties should be summarized as part of your response to this criterion, and the letters must be included in Appendix B. Please note that VAPG does not require Congressional letters of support, nor do they carry any extra weight during the evaluation process. Also, note that because applications with cash matching contributions are awarded more points than those pledging only in-kind contributions, applicants will not be able to substitute an in-kind match for cash after awards are made.
Points will be awarded as follows:
(i) 0 points will be awarded if you do not address the criterion
(ii) Independent Producer Commitment
(A) Sole Proprietor (one owner/producer): 1 point
(B) Multiple Independent Producers (note: in cases where family members, such as husband and wife, are eligible Independent Producers, each family member will count as one Independent Producer): 2 points
(iii) Level of Commitment
(A) All matching contributions are in-kind: 1 point
(B) Matching contribution consists of both cash and in-kind: 2 points
(C) All matching contributions are cash: 4 points
(iv) End-user commitment:
(A) No or insufficiently documented commitment from end-users: 0 points
(B) Well-documented commitment from one end-user: 1 point
(C) Well-documented commitment from more than one end-user: 2 points
(v) Third-party commitment:
(A) No or insufficiently documented commitment from third-parties: 0 points
(B) Well-documented commitment from one third-party: 1 point
(C) Well-documented commitment from more than one third-party: 2 points
(d)
You must submit a comprehensive work plan and budget (for full details, see 7 CFR 4284.922(b)(5)). Your work plan must provide specific and detailed descriptions of the tasks and the key project personnel that will accomplish the project's goals. The budget must present a detailed breakdown and description of all estimated costs of project activities (including source and basis for their valuation) and allocate those costs among the listed tasks, as instructed in the application package. You must show the source and use of both grant and matching funds for all tasks. Matching funds must be spent at a rate equal to, or in advance of, grant funds. An eligible start and end date for the entire project, as well as for each individual project task must be clearly shown. The project timeframe must not exceed 36 months and should be scaled to the complexity of the project. Working capital applications must include an estimate of program income expected to be earned during the grant period (see 2 CFR 200.307).
Points will be awarded as follows:
(1) 0 points will be awarded if you do not address the criterion.
(2) 1-7 points will be awarded if the work plan and budget do not account for all project goals, tasks, costs, timelines, and responsible personnel.
(3) 8-14 points will be awarded if you provide a clear, comprehensive work plan detailing all project goals, tasks, timelines, costs, and responsible personnel in a logical and realistic manner that demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success.
(4) 15-20 points will be awarded if you provide a clear, comprehensive work plan detailing all project goals, tasks, timelines, costs, and responsible personnel in a logical and realistic manner that demonstrates a high likelihood of success.
(e)
It is recommended that you use the Agency application package when applying for priority points and refer to the requirements specified in 7 CFR 4284.924. Priority points may be awarded in both the general funds and Reserved Funds competitions.
(1) 5 points will be awarded if you meet the requirements for one of the following categories and provide the documentation described in 7 CFR 4284.923 and 4284.924 as applicable: Beginning Farmer or Rancher, Socially-Disadvantaged Farmer or Rancher, Veteran Farmer or Rancher, or Operator of a Small or Medium-sized Farm or Ranch that is structured as a Family Farm, Farmer or Rancher Cooperative, or are proposing a Mid-Tier Value Chain project.
(2) Up to 5 priority points will be awarded if you are an Agricultural Producer Group, Farmer or Rancher Cooperative, or Majority-Controlled Producer-Based Business Venture (referred to below as “applicant group”) whose project “best contributes to creating or increasing marketing opportunities” for Operators of Small- and Medium-sized Farms and Ranches that are structured as Family Farms, Beginning Farmers and Ranchers, Socially-Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers (referred to below as “priority groups”). For each of the priority point levels below, applications must demonstrate how the proposed project will contribute to new or increased marketing opportunities for respective priority groups. Guidance on relevant information required to adequately demonstrate this requirement can be found in program application package.
(i) 2 priority points will be awarded if the existing membership of the applicant group is comprised of either more than 50 percent of any one of the four priority groups or more than 50 percent of any combination of the four priority groups.
(ii) 1 priority point will be awarded if the existing membership of the applicant group is comprised of two or more of the priority groups. One point is awarded regardless of whether a group's membership is comprised of two, three, or all four of the priority groups.
(iii) 2 priority points will be awarded if the applicant's proposed project will increase the number of priority groups that comprise applicant membership by one or more priority groups. However,
(f)
The Administrator of the Agency may choose to award up to 10 points to an application to improve the geographic diversity of awardees and/or foster persistent poverty counties and/or help reduce unemployment through job creation in a fiscal year. To ensure that funds are more broadly utilized in support of recommendations made in the Rural Prosperity Task Force report to help improve life in rural America, the Administrator may also choose to award points to eligible applicants who have never previously been awarded a VAPG grant. Eligible applicants who have never previously received VAPG funds and who want to be considered for discretionary points must specifically request consideration for these points and certify that neither the applicant entity or any of its owner or members have ever received a VAPG grant. To be considered for these points, you must discuss how your workplan and budget supports one or more of the five following key strategies:
Achieving e-Connectivity for Rural America;
Improving Quality of Life;
Supporting a Rural Workforce;
Harnessing Technological Innovation; and
Economic Development.
The Agency will select applications for award under this Notice in accordance with the provisions specified in 7 CFR 4284.950(a).
If your application is eligible and complete, it will be qualitatively scored by at least two reviewers based on criteria specified in section E.1. of this Notice. One of these reviewers will be an experienced RD employee from your servicing State Office and at least one additional reviewer will be a non-Federal, independent reviewer, who must meet the following qualifications. Independent reviewers must have at least a bachelor's degree in one or more of the following fields: Agri-business, agricultural economics, agriculture, animal science, business, marketing, economics or finance; and a minimum of 8 years of experience in an agriculture-related field (
The Administrator of the Agency may choose to award up to 10 Administrator priority points based on criterion (f) in section E.1. of this Notice. These points will be added to the cumulative score for a total possible score of 100.
A final ranking will be obtained based solely on the scores received for criteria (a) through (e). A minimum score of 50 points is required for funding. Applications for Reserved Funds will be funded in rank order until funds are depleted. Unfunded reserve applications will be returned to the general funds where applications will be funded in rank order until the funds are expended. Funding for Majority Controlled Producer-Based Business Ventures is limited to 10 percent of total grant funds expected to be obligated as a result of this Notice. These applications will be funded in rank order until the funding limitation has been reached. Grants to these applicants from Reserved Funds will count against this funding limitation. In the event of tied scores, the Administrator shall have discretion in breaking ties.
If your application is ranked, but not funded, it will not be carried forward into the next competition.
If you are selected for funding, you will receive a signed notice of Federal award by postal mail, containing instructions on requirements necessary to proceed with execution and performance of the award.
If you are not selected for funding, you will be notified in writing via postal mail and informed of any review and appeal rights. Funding of successfully appealed applications will be limited to available funding.
Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in 7 CFR part 4284, subpart J; the Grants and Agreements regulations of the Department of Agriculture codified in 2 CFR parts 180, 400, 415, 417, 418, 421; 2 CFR parts 25 and 170; and 48 CFR 31.2, and successor regulations to these parts.
In addition, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation (see 2 CFR part 170). You will be required to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282) reporting requirements (see 2 CFR 170.200(b), unless you are exempt under 2 CFR 170.110(b)). More information on these requirements can be found at
The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:
(a) Agency approved Grant Agreement.
(b) Letter of Conditions.
(c) Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”
(d) Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”
(e) Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions.”
(f) Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”
(g) Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding a Drug-Free Workplace Requirement (Grants).”
(h) Form AD-3031, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants.” Must be signed by corporate applicants who receive an award under this Notice.
(i) Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.”
(j) SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.
(k) Use Form SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement.”
After grant approval and through grant completion, you will be required to provide the following, as indicated in the Grant Agreement:
(a) A SF-425, “Federal Financial Report,” and a project performance report will be required on a semiannual
(b) A final project and financial status report within 90 days after the expiration or termination of the grant.
(c) Provide outcome project performance reports and final deliverables.
Rural Development is seeking non-Federal independent grant reviewers under this Notice. Reviewers must be able to use their professional knowledge and experience to evaluate and score VAPG program applications against the evaluation criteria published in this Notice, and effectively communicate their findings in writing.
All reviewers must meet the following qualifications.
(a) Have at least a bachelor's degree in one or more of the following fields: agri-business, agricultural economics, business, marketing, economics or finance, and
(b) A minimum of 8 years of experience in an agriculture-related field (
Prospective reviewers must be able to exercise the highest level of ethical standards in avoiding conflict of interests and maintaining confidentiality.
(a) Conflict of Interest
Individuals selected as non-Federal independent grant reviewers will be required to certify that they do not have a conflict of interest or an appearance thereof with any VAPG application they are assigned to review. This may include but is not limited to certification that they did not apply for a VAPG grant and are not affiliated with persons or organizations applying for VAPG funds.
(b) Confidentiality
Reviewers will also be required to sign a certification statement regarding the safeguarding of information contained in assigned applications.
Failure to identify a conflict-of-interest or the unauthorized disclosure of information may subject reviewers to administrative sanction,
All reviewers must review and understand program requirements and must attend a mandatory training webinar.
(a) Reviewers must have reliable internet access using Internet Explorer and be able to reliably both access applications and submit scores electronically, and
(b) All reviewers must be able to complete requirements for, obtain, and maintain USDA Level 2 e-Authorization credentialing.
To apply, please send a resume addressing relevant qualifications and experience to
If you have questions about this Notice, please contact the State Office as identified in the
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
(1)
(2)
(3)
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On October 18, 2019, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a final judgment in
Applicable December 7, 2019.
Sally C. Gannon, Bilateral Agreements Unit, Office of Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0162.
On December 19, 2014, Commerce and the signatory producers/exporters accounting for substantially all imports of sugar from Mexico signed the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Sugar from Mexico (AD Agreement).
CSC Sugar LLC (CSC Sugar) challenged Commerce's determination to amend the AD Agreement by contending that Commerce did not meet its obligation to file a complete administrative record.
The CIT agreed with CSC Sugar and ordered Commerce to supplement the administrative record with any
The CIT found that Commerce's failure to follow the recordkeeping requirements of Section 777 of the Act cannot be described as “harmless.”
Consistent with the CIT's ruling in
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders and findings with October anniversary dates. In accordance with Commerce's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.
Applicable December 11, 2019.
Brenda E. Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
Commerce has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various AD and CVD orders and findings with October anniversary dates.
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (POR), it must notify Commerce within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the POR. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 30 days of publication of the initiation
In the event Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act, the following guidelines regarding collapsing of companies for purposes of respondent selection will apply. In general, Commerce has found that
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended the Act by adding the concept of a particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of constructed value under section 773(e) of the Act.
Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of initial responses to section D of the questionnaire.
In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, Commerce begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is Commerce's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, Commerce analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise. In accordance with the separate rates criteria, Commerce assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, Commerce requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on Commerce's website at
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding
For exporters and producers who submit a Separate Rate Application or Certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following AD and CVD orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than October 31, 2020.
During
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant “gap” period of the order (
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with the procedures outlined in Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (
Commerce's regulations identify five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). These regulations require any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information using the formats provided at the end of the
Parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by Commerce.
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On October 18, 2019, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a final judgment in
Applicable December 7, 2019.
Sally C. Gannon, Bilateral Agreements Unit, Office of Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0162.
On December 19, 2014, Commerce and the Government of Mexico (GOM) signed the Agreement Suspending the Countervailing Duty Investigation on Sugar from Mexico (CVD Agreement).
CSC Sugar LLC (CSC Sugar) challenged Commerce's determination to amend the CVD Agreement by contending that Commerce did not meet its obligation to file a complete administrative record.
The CIT agreed with CSC Sugar and ordered Commerce to supplement the administrative record with any
The CIT found that Commerce's failure to follow the recordkeeping requirements of Section 777 of the Act cannot be described as “harmless.”
Consistent with the CIT's ruling in
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice of fee rate adjustment.
NMFS issues this notice to inform the public that there will be an increase of the fee rate required to repay the $35,000,000 reduction loan financing the non-pollock groundfish fishing capacity reduction program. Effective January 1, 2020, NMFS is increasing the Loan A fee rate to $0.021 per pound to ensure timely loan repayment. The fee rate for Loan B will remain unchanged at $0.001 per pound.
The non-pollock groundfish program fee rate increase will begin with landings on January 1, 2020. The first due date for fee payments with the increased rate will be February 15, 2020.
Send questions about this notice to Elaine Saiz, Chief, Financial Services Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282.
Elaine Saiz, (301) 427-8752.
Sections 312(b)-(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861
Enacted on December 8, 2004, section 219, Title II, of FY 2005 Appropriations Act, Public Law 104-447 (Act) authorizes a fishing capacity reduction program implementing capacity reduction plans submitted to NMFS by catcher processor subsectors of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (“BSAI”) non-pollock groundfish fishery (“reduction fishery”) as set forth in the Act.
The longline catcher processor subsector (the “Longline Subsector”) is among the catcher processor subsectors eligible to submit to NMFS a capacity reduction plan under the terms of the Act. The longline subsector non-pollock groundfish reduction program's objective was to reduce the number of vessels and permits endorsed for longline subsector of the non-pollock groundfish fishery. All post-reduction fish landings from the reduction fishery are subject to the longline subsector non-pollock groundfish program's fee.
NMFS proposed the implementing notice on August 11, 2006 (71 FR 46364), and published the final notice on September 29, 2006 (71 FR 57696). NMFS allocated the $35,000,000 reduction loan (A Loan) to the reduction fishery and this loan is repayable by fees from the fishery.
On September 24, 2007, NMFS published in the
NMFS published a final rule to implement a second $2,700,000 reduction loan (B Loan) for this fishery in the
The purpose of this notice is to adjust the fee rate for the reduction fishery in accordance with the framework rule's § 600.1013(b). Section 600.1013(b) directs NMFS to recalculate the fee rate that will be reasonably necessary to ensure reduction loan repayment within the specified 30 year term.
NMFS has determined for the reduction fishery that the current fee rate of $0.017 per pound is less than that needed to service the A Loan. Therefore, NMFS is increasing the Loan A fee rate to $0.021 per pound which NMFS has determined is sufficient to ensure timely loan repayment. The fee rate for Loan B will remain $0.001 per pound.
Subsector members may continue to use Pay.gov to disburse collected fee deposits at:
Please visit the NMFS website for additional information at:
The new fee rate for the non-pollock Groundfish fishery will begin on January 1, 2020.
From and after this date, all subsector members paying fees on the non-pollock groundfish fishery shall begin paying non-pollock groundfish fishery program fees at the revised rate.
Fee collection and submission shall follow previously established methods in § 600.1013 of the framework rule and in the final fee rule published in the
16 U.S.C. 1861
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of applications for permits and a permit modification.
Notice is hereby given that three applicants have applied in due form for a permit to take Atlantic (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before January 10, 2020.
The applications and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone: (301) 427-8401; fax: (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on these applications should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on the application would be appropriate.
Malcolm Mohead (for File Nos. 22671-01 and 23096) or Erin Markin (for File No. 23200), (301) 427-8401.
The subject permits and permit modification are requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The permit holder requests additional authorization for blood sampling to evaluate stress levels experienced by the upstream-migrant shortnose sturgeon in upstream passage through the Holyoke fish elevator. Blood samples from treatment animals would be collected at the height of the fish passage elevator and also from control animals below the dam prior to entering the lift. Additionally, the permit holder requests trawling gear to be authorized for capturing shortnose sturgeon in the Connecticut River between Turner Falls Dam (MA) and Bellows Falls Dam (VT). The permit would expire on March 31, 2029.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice, 2020 cost recovery fee percentages and Mothership Co-op (MS) Program pricing.
This action provides participants in the Pacific Coast
Applicable January 1, 2020.
Christopher Biegel, Cost Recovery Program Coordinator, (503) 231-6291, fax (503) 872-2737, email
The Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires NMFS to collect fees to recover the costs directly related to the management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement directly related to and in support of a limited access privilege program (LAPP) (16 U.S.C. 1854(d)(2)), also called “cost recovery.” The Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program is a LAPP, implemented in 2011, and consists of three sector-specific programs: The Shorebased IFQ Program, the MS Co-op Program, and the CP Co-op Program. In accordance with the MSA, and based on a recommended structure and methodology developed in coordination with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), NMFS began collecting mandatory fees of up to three percent of the ex‐vessel value of groundfish from each program (Shorebased IFQ Program, MS Co-op Program, and CP Co-op Program) in 2014. NMFS collects the fees to recover the incremental costs of management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement of the Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program. Additional background can be found in the cost recovery proposed and final rules, 78 FR 7371 (February 1, 2013) and 78 FR 75268 (December 11, 2013), respectively. The details of cost recovery for the Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program are in regulation at 50 CFR 660.115 (Trawl fishery-cost recovery program), § 660.140 (Shorebased IFQ Program), § 660.150 (MS Co-op Program), and § 660.160 (CP Co-op Program).
By December 31 of each year, NMFS must announce the next year's fee percentages and the applicable MS pricing for the CP Co-op Program. NMFS calculated the 2020 fee percentages by sector using the best available information. For 2020, the fee percentages by program, taking into account the adjusted direct program costs (DPCs), are:
• 3.00 percent for the Shorebased IFQ Program,
• 0.29 percent for the MS Co-op Program, and
• 0.08 percent for the CP Co-op Program.
To calculate the fee percentages, NMFS used the formula specified in regulation at § 660.115(b)(1), where the fee percentage by sector equals the lower of three percent or DPC for that sector divided by total ex-vessel value (V) for that sector multiplied by 100 (Fee percentage = the lower of 3 percent or (DPC/V) × 100).
“DPC,” as defined in the regulations at § 660.115(b)(1)(i), are the actual incremental costs for the previous fiscal year directly related to the management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement of each program (Shorebased IFQ Program, MS Co-op Program, and CP Co-op Program). Actual incremental costs means those net costs that would not have been incurred but for the implementation of the Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program, including both increased costs for new requirements of the program and reduced costs resulting from any program efficiencies.
“V”, as specified at § 660.115(b)(1)(ii), is the total ex-vessel value, as defined at § 660.111, for each sector from the previous calendar year. The regulations define ex-vessel value slightly differently for each sector, thus NMFS uses slightly different methods to calculate “V” for each sector. For the Shorebased IFQ Program, NMFS used the ex-vessel value for calendar year 2018 as reported in Pacific Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN) from shorebased IFQ electronic fish tickets as this was the most recent complete set of data. For the MS Co-op Program and the CP Co-op Program, NMFS uses the average price of Pacific whiting as reported in PacFIN from the shorebased IFQ sector in 2018 and the retained catch estimates (weight) from the observer data, as reported in the North Pacific Observer Program database. NMFS does not collect pricing data for these two sectors so it uses the shorebased IFQ sector data as a proxy.
On August 10, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in
The redetermination resulted in overpayments of the cost recovery fee by the CP and MS Co-op Programs. NMFS has continued to adjust the fees for these two sectors in subsequent years to account for this overpayment, as specified at § 660.115(b)(1)(i). This adjustment is reflected in the table below.
Based on the estimated fees received in 2019 and adjustments for overpayments by the CP and MS Co-op Programs, the adjusted DPCs for 2020 are:
The fee calculations using the adjusted 2019 DPCs are described below.
IFQ Program:
• 3.00 percent = the lower of 3 percent or ($1,807,568.15/$54,795,365.00) × 100.
MS Co-op Program:
• 0.29 percent = the lower of 3 percent or ($33,232.92/$11,562,542.83) × 100.
CP Co-op Program:
• 0.08 percent = the lower of 3 percent or ($16,050.48/$20,307,972.13) × 100.
MS pricing is the average price per pound that the CP Co-op Program will use to determine their fee amount due (MS pricing multiplied by the value of the Pacific whiting harvested by the vessel registered to a CP-endorsed limited entry trawl permit, multiplied by the CP fee percentage, equals the fee amount due). MS pricing is based on the average price per pound of Pacific whiting as reported in PacFIN from the shorebased IFQ sector. In other words, data from the IFQ fishery was used as a proxy for the MS average price per pound to determine the MS pricing used in the calculation for the CP Co-op Program's fee amount due. NMFS has calculated the 2020 MS pricing to be used as a proxy by the CP Co-op Program as: $0.08/lb for Pacific whiting.
Cost recovery fees are submitted to NMFS by fish buyers via
As stated in the preamble to the cost recovery proposed and final rules, in the spring of each year, NMFS will release an annual report documenting the details and data used for the above calculations. The report includes information such as the fee percentage calculation, program costs, and ex-vessel value by sector. Annual reports are available at:
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permits and permit modifications.
Notice is hereby given that permits or permit amendments have been issued to the following entities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as applicable.
The permits and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone: (301) 427-8401; fax: (301) 713-0376.
Amy Hapeman (Permit Nos. 22835 and 23095), Jennifer Skidmore (Permit Nos. 20610-02, 22435, and 23092), and Carrie Hubard (Permit No. 23043); at (301) 427-8401.
Notices were published in the
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permit was based on
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice of fee rate adjustment.
NMFS issues this notice to decrease the fee rate to 3.5 percent for the Pacific Coast Groundfish fee-share fishery to repay the $28,428,718.88 Groundfish sub-loan of the $35,662,471 reduction loan that financed the Pacific Coast Groundfish fishing capacity reduction program.
The fee rate decrease for the Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery will begin on landings starting on January 1, 2020. The first due date for fee payments with the decreased rate will be February 14, 2020.
Send questions about this notice to Elaine Saiz, Chief, Financial Services Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282.
Elaine Saiz, (301) 427-8752.
Sections 312(b) through (e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a (b) through (e)) generally authorizes fishing capacity reduction programs. In particular, section 312(d) authorizes industry fee systems for repaying reduction loans that finance reduction programs. Subpart L of 50 CFR part 600 is the framework rule generally implementing section 312(b) through (e). Sections 1111 and 1112 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1279f and 1279g) generally authorizes reduction loans.
Enacted on February 20, 2003, section 212 of Division B, Title II, of Public Law 108-7 (section 212) specifically authorizes a fishing capacity reduction program for that portion of the limited entry trawl fishery under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan whose permits, excluding those registered to whiting catcher-processors, are endorsed for trawl gear operation (reduction fishery).
The reduction program's objective was to reduce the number of vessels and permits endorsed for the operation of groundfish trawl gear. The program also involved corollary fishing capacity reduction in the California, Oregon, and Washington fisheries for Dungeness crab and pink shrimp and the sub-loans for these state fisheries have all been repaid.
NMFS proposed the implementing notice on May 28, 2003 (68 FR 31653) and published the final notice on July 18, 2003 (68 FR 42613). NMFS allocated a $28,428,719 reduction loan to the groundfish fishery. The allocation became a reduction loan repayable by fees from the groundfish fishery.
NMFS published in the
The purpose of this notice is to adjust, in accordance with the framework rule's § 600.1013(b), the fee rate for the groundfish fishery. Section 600.1013(b) directs NMFS to recalculate the fee rate that will be reasonably necessary to ensure reduction loan repayment within the specified 30-year term. NMFS has determined that the current fee rate of 4.0 percent for the groundfish fishery is projected to collect more than the annual amortization amount needed for 2020. Therefore, NMFS is decreasing the fee rate to 3.5 percent for all landings beginning January 1, 2020.
Fish buyers may continue to disburse collected fee deposits to NMFS by using
The new 3.5 percent fee rate for the groundfish fishery will begin for all landings starting January 1, 2020. From and after this date, all groundfish program fish sellers paying fees shall begin paying groundfish program fees at the revised rate. From and after this date, all fees received by NMFS for the groundfish fishery shall be subject to the new fee rates regardless of the applicable fee month. The first due date for fee payments with the decreased rate will be February 14, 2020.
Fee collection and submission shall follow previously established methods in § 600.1013 of the framework rule and in the final fee rule published in the
The authority for this action is Pub. L. 107 206, Pub. L. 108 7, 16 U.S.C. 1861a (b) through (e), and 50 CFR 600.1000
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed renewal of a collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before February 10, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by “Privacy of Consumer Financial Information,” and OMB Control No. 3038-0055 by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's website, at
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method. All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Jacob Chachkin, Special Counsel, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5496, email:
Under the PRA,
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of 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;
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Supervisory highlights.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing its twentieth edition of its Supervisory Highlights. In this special issue of Supervisory Highlights, we report examination findings in the areas of consumer reporting and furnishing of information to consumer reporting companies, pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Regulation V. The report does not impose any new or different legal requirements, and all violations described in the report are based only on those specific facts and circumstances noted during those examinations.
The Bureau released this edition of the Supervisory Highlights on its website on December 9, 2019.
David Wake, Senior Counsel, Office of Supervision Policy, at (202) 435-9613. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) is committed to a consumer financial marketplace that is free, innovative, competitive, and transparent, where the rights of all parties are protected by the rule of law, and where consumers are free to choose the products and services that best fit their individual needs. To effectively accomplish this, the Bureau remains committed to sharing with the public key findings from its supervisory work to help industry limit risks to consumers and comply with Federal consumer financial law.
The findings included in this report cover examinations in the areas of consumer reporting and furnishing of information to consumer reporting companies (CRCs),
Recent supervisory reviews of compliance with the FCRA and Regulation V have identified new violations and compliance management system (CMS) weaknesses at institutions within the CFPB's supervisory authority. These institutions include CRCs that are larger participants in the consumer reporting market
The information contained in Supervisory Highlights is disseminated to communicate the Bureau's supervisory expectations to CRCs and furnishers that those institutions comply with the applicable provisions of the FCRA and Regulation V. This document does not impose any new or different legal requirements. In addition, the legal violations described in this and previous issues of Supervisory Highlights are based on the particular facts and circumstances reviewed by the Bureau as part of its examinations. A conclusion that a legal violation exists on the facts and circumstances described here may not lead to such a finding under different facts and circumstances.
We invite readers with questions or comments about the findings and legal analysis reported in Supervisory Highlights to contact us at
Furnishers of information play a crucial role in the accuracy and integrity of consumer reports when they provide information to CRCs. Inaccurate information from furnishers can lead to inaccurate reports and consumer and market harm. For example, inaccurate information on a consumer report can impact a consumer's ability to obtain credit or open a new deposit or savings account at a bank. Moreover, furnishers have an important role in the dispute process when consumers dispute the accuracy of information in their consumer reports. Consumers may dispute information that appears on their consumer report directly to furnishers (“direct disputes”) or indirectly through CRCs (“indirect disputes”). When furnishers receive direct or indirect disputes, they are required to investigate the disputes to verify the accuracy of the information furnished.
In recent supervisory reviews, examiners found CMS weaknesses and violations of the FCRA and Regulation V. In such cases, the furnisher(s) have taken or are taking corrective action.
Regulation V requires furnishers to establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of the information relating to consumers that they provide to CRCs.
In one or more reviews of furnishers of mortgage loans, examiners found that the furnishers' policies and procedures
In one or more reviews of furnishers of auto loans, examiners found that the furnishers' policies and procedures did not provide sufficient guidance for conducting reasonable investigations of indirect disputes that contain allegations of identity theft. For example, the furnishers' policies and procedures did not specify that agents investigating disputes alleging identity theft should review internal records of fraud investigations before completing dispute investigations and responding to CRCs. As a result of these findings, one or more furnishers are developing and implementing policies and procedures with respect to identity theft disputes to ensure the furnisher conducts its investigation, including review of internal records, prior to responding to the CRC.
In one or more reviews of debt collection furnishers, examiners found that the furnishers' policies and procedures did not differentiate between FCRA disputes, FDCPA disputes, or validation requests. In this regard, the furnishers categorized and handled direct FCRA disputes, FDCPA disputes, and validation requests the same way and without consideration for the applicable regulatory requirements. Furthermore, the policies and procedures did not address the regulatory timeframes for conducting reasonable investigations of disputes, or for reporting the results of the investigations to the consumers or to CRCs, as appropriate. Instead, the policies and procedures provided general instructions on how to indicate that accounts are disputed and how to label dispute-related correspondence from consumers. The policies and procedures did not contain any substantive instructions on how to conduct investigations of disputed accounts. Following these findings, one or more furnishers are developing and implementing reasonable policies and procedures covering the steps necessary to conduct reasonable and timely investigations of disputes, as that term is defined in Regulation V.
Examiners found that one or more furnishers of deposit account information to specialty CRCs had no written policies or procedures for furnishing such information to specialty CRCs. In response to this finding, one or more deposit account furnishers are developing and implementing reasonable written policies and procedures regarding furnishing to specialty deposit CRCs.
Examiners also found that one or more deposit account furnishers did not have reasonable written policies and procedures regarding deposit account information. For example, policies and procedures did not require that the furnishers validate the data furnished to specialty deposit CRCs, causing the furnisher to inaccurately furnish consumers' account status information to one or more specialty CRCs. One or more deposit account furnishers are evaluating the effectiveness of existing policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of information furnished to nationwide specialty CRCs and develop new written policies where appropriate.
In follow-up reviews at furnishers previously examined, examiners found that one or more furnishers had made significant improvements in furnishing policies and procedures. For example, one or more furnishers updated their policies and procedures to incorporate specific requirements to ensure dispute investigation agents conduct reasonable dispute investigations and document their work. Revised dispute investigation procedures include an extensive list of internal systems and sources that dispute agents must research when investigating a dispute. Updated procedures also dictate that the furnisher retains dispute investigation documentation and records, including imaged screenshots, for a minimum of seven years.
In another example of improved furnishing policies and procedures, examiners found that one or more deposit furnishers documented improved quality monitoring procedures to impose enhanced sampling and oversight procedures regarding furnished deposits information. Additionally, one or more furnishers improved procedures governing when to delete, update, and correct information in its records to avoid furnishing inaccurate information to specialty CRAs. One such new procedure required the furnisher to conduct a root-cause analysis of dispute results to ensure that when dispute investigations identify systemic errors, the furnisher corrects furnished data about other accounts that were also affected by similar errors.
The FCRA prohibits furnishers from furnishing any information relating to a consumer to any CRC if the furnisher “knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.”
If a furnisher who “regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more [CRCs] about the person's transactions or experiences with any consumer” has furnished to a CRC information that the furnisher determines is not complete or accurate, it shall promptly notify the CRC of that determination and provide to the CRC any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided to the CRC complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the CRC any of the information that remains not complete or accurate.
The CFPB has identified violations of this provision in one or more recent furnisher reviews. For example, in one or more reviews of auto loan furnishers, examiners found that the furnishers failed to provide prompt notifications to CRCs of their determinations that information they had previously furnished was inaccurate because the furnishers had found that the loans had been opened as a result of identity theft. In such cases, the furnishers recorded the results of their investigations internally, but failed to make the corrections necessary to make the furnished information accurate. In response to these findings, one or more auto furnishers are developing and implementing policies and procedures to ensure that they promptly notify CRCs and/or correct information furnished, as appropriate, if they find that information they had previously furnished is inaccurate.
As another example, in one or more reviews of deposit account furnishers, examiners found that the furnishers failed to promptly correct and update deposit account information reported to nationwide specialty CRCs that the furnishers determined was not complete or accurate. Examiners identified several situations where the furnishers failed to promptly update or correct information. These situations included when consumers' charged-off balances had been discharged in bankruptcy, and when consumers paid their charged-off balances in full. In both situations, the furnishers updated their systems of record to indicate that the status of the accounts had changed but failed to update and correct the information furnished to CRCs about these accounts. In response to these findings, one or more furnishers are updating account information with the relevant CRCs for all impacted accounts and enhancing furnishing procedures.
In one or more follow up deposit account furnisher reviews to address the furnishers' prior failure to update and correct information when consumers paid-in-full or settled-in-full, examiners found one or more deposit account furnishers had improved furnishing activities to address the failure to correct and update information required by the FCRA. To address this violation and the matters requiring attention from the prior exam, one or more furnishers of deposit account information took several actions, including:
System changes that included the creation of coding processes to automated systems to identify consumers who paid in-full, and where appropriate, notification to CRCs of the corrected status of affected consumers;
Notification to CRCs of the correct status of paid-in-full and settled-in-full consumer accounts;
Improved tracking of paid-in-full and settled-in-full consumers and the establishment of a trigger to update the CRCs once final payment is made without requiring consumer to notify the furnisher;
Enhanced policies and procedures and new policies and procedures to adhere to the requirements of the FCRA and Regulation V, including modification of standards for reporting fraud or account abuse and use of appropriate closure codes; and
Improved dispute monitoring and tracking, as well as analysis of disputes to improve the accuracy and integrity of information furnished to CRCs.
One or more deposit account furnishers adequately addressed the matters requiring attention from the prior exam(s) and properly notified CRCs of the correct status of all paid in full and settled in full accounts.
The date of first delinquency is important for CRCs, creditors, and consumers because it determines when information on a consumer report becomes obsolete and may no longer be reported.
In one or more reviews, furnishers reported the incorrect date of first delinquency. For example, one or more furnishers of auto loans furnished the date of repossession of the collateral vehicle, rather than the date of first delinquency. The date of repossession at this furnisher was several months after the date of first missed payment.
Pursuant to the FCRA and Regulation V, consumers can file disputes concerning the accuracy of information contained in a consumer report with the CRCs as well as directly with the furnisher of that information.
For disputes filed directly with furnishers, Regulation V requires furnishers to conduct a reasonable investigation with respect to the disputed information and review all relevant information provided by the consumer with the dispute notice.
For indirect disputes filed with CRCs, the FCRA requires that, upon receiving notice of the dispute from the CRC, the furnisher must conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information and review all relevant information provided by the CRC.
In another example, one or more furnishers failed to conduct reasonable investigations of indirect disputes where the disputes alleged identity theft. The furnishers responded to such disputes and verified the disputed information as accurate without reviewing their own system records as part of the investigation. Had the furnishers reviewed their own records, examiners found, they would have seen that some of the disputed accounts were, in fact, the result of identity theft. In response to these findings, one or more furnishers are developing and implementing policies and procedures with respect to indirect identity theft disputes to ensure that the furnishers conduct their investigation of the dispute, including a review of internal records, prior to responding to the CRC.
After receiving a dispute notice from a consumer, a furnisher is required under Regulation V to complete a reasonable investigation and report the results of the investigation to the consumer within the timeframe required, which is generally 30 days but can be extended up to 45 days in limited circumstances.
One or more furnishers failed to complete dispute investigations within this timeframe, resulting in delayed notice to consumers of dispute results as well as delayed deletion of delinquencies from consumers' credit reports. In one or more examinations, examiners found system design flaws—including coding errors and poor work stream management that resulted in a backlog of complaints that were not investigated or responded to in a timely manner. At one or more furnishers, examiners also identified inadequate control policies, poor resource allocation, and weak oversight that led to the results of dispute investigations not being sent to consumers. In response to these findings, one or more furnishers are updating policies and procedures, improving staff training, and implementing software enhancements.
When consumers file disputes directly with a furnisher, Regulation V allows the furnisher to decline to investigate the dispute if the furnisher has “reasonably determined that the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant.”
Examiners found that one or more furnishers failed to provide frivolousness notices to consumers when the furnisher determined that the consumers' disputes were frivolous or irrelevant when the furnisher believed the disputes were from credit repair organizations. When agents for one or more furnishers determined that disputes were sent by a credit repair agency, the disputes would be discarded as frivolous. Although these disputes were considered frivolous, no frivolousness notices were sent to consumers.
Examiners also found one or more furnishers failed to send frivolousness notices for consumer disputes when they believed the disputes were the same as another previously submitted dispute by or on behalf of consumers that had already been investigated and addressed. Although one or more furnishers had a policy stating that consumers must be notified within five days of determining that the dispute is frivolous, one or more furnishers failed to provide such notifications to consumers.
In addition to requiring that the furnisher send frivolousness notices, Regulation V also requires furnishers to include the reasons for determinations that disputes are frivolous and identify any information required to investigate the disputed information.
Participants in the larger participant market for consumer reporting include nationwide consumer reporting companies as well as some consumer report resellers and specialty consumer reporting companies.
As a result of these reviews, CRCs have continued to make improvements to procedures regarding the accuracy of information contained in consumer reports. CRCs have also improved procedures to monitor users to help ensure that consumer reports are not furnished to users when the CRC has reasonable grounds for believing the user lacks a permissible purpose. CRCs have also implemented improvements in procedures to block information that a consumer has identified as resulting from an alleged identity theft and reasonably to investigate and respond to disputes from consumers regarding the accuracy or completeness of information in consumer files. The following sections discuss the observations in these areas at CRCs and the improvements made by these entities following these reviews.
The FCRA states that “Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system. . .” and that CRCs “have assumed a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers.”
Examiners found that one or more nationwide specialty CRCs failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy by exempting certain furnishers from a data validation testing procedure without a valid basis. The CRCs had implemented an accuracy procedure under which the CRCs validated the data reported by direct furnishers on an annual basis. However, the CRCs' procedure exempted from this validation procedure smaller direct furnishers that contributed low volume of data. Further, the CRCs procedure also exempted all indirect furnishers, who contributed data to the CRCs through a reseller. Examiners concluded that the exemption of these low-volume direct furnishers and indirect furnishers posed an unreasonable risk of producing errors in consumer reports. In response to these findings, one or more CRCs are conducting data validation testing on all direct and indirect furnishers, without exceptions, and will be reporting the results of such testing to the CFPB.
Examiners also found that one or more nationwide specialty CRCs failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy by failing to properly process files furnished to the CRCs by certain furnishers. The CRCs failed to fully process incoming data files from multiple data furnishers on several occasions. The files that were not properly processed resulted in the inclusion of inaccurate, derogatory information in consumer reports. Further, for a period of more than 12 months, the CRCs failed to receive any data from one or more furnishers because the furnishers had applied an incorrect technology parameter, preventing the furnishers' data files from reaching the CRCs. This failure to receive updated data resulted in inaccurate, derogatory information being included in consumer reports. Subsequent to the discovery of these errors, one or more CRCs have implemented data monitoring procedures that are designed to notify furnishers of such data processing errors.
The FCRA states that “there is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer's right to privacy.”
Supervision conducted one or more reviews of CRCs to evaluate the entities' permissible purpose procedures. In these reviews, examiners found that one or more CRCs have procedures to verify the identity and permissible purposes of new prospective users, which one or more CRCs refer to as “credentialing.” Further, examiners found that one or more CRCs have procedures to monitor that users have a permissible purpose when users obtain consumer reports.
However, examiners also found CMS weaknesses in one or more CRCs' permissible purpose procedures. For example, one or more CRCs lacked procedures to conduct proactive re-credentialing reviews of its users. Under such a re-credentialing review, the CRCs review existing users to confirm that the user continues to have a permissible purpose to use and obtain consumer reports. Examiners found that the CRCs had procedures to conduct re-credentialing reviews of users only when users notified the CRCs of a change in ownership, name, status, or nature of business or if the CRCs' monitoring identified a specific potential permissible purpose violation by a user. The CRCs did not, however, have a procedure to review the credentialing of users based on the length of time since the user was previously reviewed. As a result of these findings, one or more CRCs are implementing proactive re-credentialing policies and procedures that consider factors such as the time since a user was last credentialed for permissible purpose.
Examiners also found CMS weaknesses in the monitoring procedures at one or more CRCs regarding permissible purpose. For example, one or more CRCs failed to monitor users or resellers that requested the CRCs delete large numbers of hard inquiry records from consumer reports. When users obtain consumer reports from CRCs, the CRCs document that event by entering an inquiry record in the relevant consumer's file. Depending on the user's permissible purpose, the inquiry may be visible for up to a year to other users/creditors that obtain the consumer's report as well as being visible to the consumer; or instead it may be visible only to the consumer.
The FCRA requires that, unless an exception applies, a CRC must “block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft” provided that the consumer provides required information.
Examiners found that one or more nationwide specialty CRCs violated the requirements of this provision of the FCRA. When consumers submitted an identity theft block request with all required underlying documentation, the CRCs forwarded the information to furnishers and relied on the furnishers' response without making an independent determination, even in cases where the furnisher stated no block should be applied. Therefore, examiners concluded that the CRCs did not reasonably determine to decline the block and on what basis, as required by the statute. Following this finding, one or more nationwide specialty CRCs are changing procedures to the identity-theft block provisions of the FCRA. These changes include adopting new policies and procedures that require that the CRCs block the identified information within four business days of receiving a valid identity theft report. Revised procedures also included that for any identity theft block request that the CRCs declines or rescinded, the CRCs includes documentation of the rationale for denying or rescinding the block to ensure that decisions can be monitored and audited for compliance with the FCRA.
Supervision has continued its focus on reviewing CRCs' compliance with the provisions of the FCRA governing consumer disputes. In previous issues of Supervisory Highlights, we discussed findings at one or more CRCs regarding violations of several provisions in this area.
In recent reviews, examiners have identified new violations of several sub-sections of this area of the FCRA. These new violations include failures by CRCs to conduct reasonable dispute investigations, breakdowns in the required notification procedures to furnishers about disputes, failures of CRCs to provide notices of results to consumers, and failure of resellers to convey notice of disputes to CRCs that provided the disputed information.
The FCRA requires that when a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of an item of information in their file, the CRC must “conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file. . . .”
Examiners found that one or more CRCs systematically violated this requirement by failing to initiate investigations after notice of the dispute. When the CRCs received disputes related to identity theft or fraud via telephone, they instructed consumers to submit the dispute in writing and did not initiate investigations until the consumer resubmitted in written form. Examiners concluded that the FCRA does not permit a CRC to decline to investigate disputes in this manner. According to the FCRA, the CRC must conduct a dispute investigation when it receives notice of the dispute information. As a result of these findings, one or more CRCs enhanced their dispute resolution process by updating policies, procedures, and training materials, and requiring agents to initiate investigations of all disputes received via telephone.
The FCRA also requires that, in conducting its dispute investigation, the CRC must “review and consider all relevant information submitted by the consumer . . . with respect to such disputed information.”
The FCRA generally requires that the CRCs' dispute investigations must be completed “before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of dispute from the consumer or reseller.”
The FCRA requires that when a CRC receives a notice of a dispute from a consumer, the CRC must “provide notification of the dispute to any person who provided any item of information in dispute. . . .”
Examiners found that one or more CRCs violated this provision of the FCRA when they failed to notify furnishers of a consumer's dispute within five business days of receiving a dispute. This violation occurred in thousands of disputes over several months. This violation was caused by lack of adequate staffing at the CRCs and was not detected by the CRCs' compliance monitoring. As a result of the examination findings, the CRCs developed and implemented dispute investigation procedures to ensure agents provide required notices to furnishers and forward all relevant information regarding the dispute within the mandatory time periods.
When a CRC has completed its dispute investigation, if the CRC finds that any disputed information is inaccurate or incomplete or unable to be verified, the FCRA requires the CRC to “promptly notify the furnisher of that information that the information has been modified or deleted from the file of the consumer.”
In one or more reviews of nationwide specialty CRCs, examiners identified instances where one or more specialty CRCs failed to notify furnishers that information from the consumer's file had been modified or deleted after an investigation. In these instances, one or more CRCs were informed by the furnisher that a modification or deletion was necessary. One or more specialty CRCs investigation agents then modified or deleted the incorrect information but failed to inform the furnisher of the action taken, as required by the FCRA. In other instances, the information was internally resolved in the consumer's favor by one or more specialty CRCs but either the CRCs did not provide the notice to the furnishers of the modification or deletion, or they did not provide “prompt” notice to the furnisher required by the FCRA. As a result of these findings, one or more specialty CRCs developed and implemented dispute investigation procedures to ensure agent provide the required notice consistent with the requirements in the FCRA.
Additionally, examiners found that one or more CRCs failed to promptly send furnishers notices when investigations found that information was not accurate and information was changed in the consumer's file. One or more CRCs admitted that they failed to transmit approximately 2.7 million notices over a period of approximately two months. The cause for the failure was a programming error. This failure primarily affected consumers who submitted direct disputes to furnishers but some consumers who submitted indirect disputes to CRCs were also affected. As a result of this finding, one or more CRCs are fixing the programming error and enhancing their internal monitoring to avoid future issues of this type.
The FCRA requires that, upon completion of the reasonable reinvestigation, the CRC must provide written notice of the results to the consumer not later than five business days after completion of the reinvestigation.
The FCRA dispute provisions provide direction to resellers upon receipt of a dispute from a consumer. These requirements include, where applicable, providing notice of the dispute to the CRC that provided the reseller with the disputed information. “If a reseller receives a notice from a consumer of a dispute concerning the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer report on such consumer produced by the reseller, the reseller shall” determine whether the item of information is incomplete or inaccurate as a result of an act or omission of the reseller within five business days.
Examiners found that one or more resellers, after determining that disputed information was not incomplete or inaccurate as a result of an act or omission of the resellers, failed to convey to the CRCs that provided the information the notice of the dispute together with all relevant information provided by the consumer. In response to these findings, one or more resellers developed and implemented dispute investigation procedures designed to ensure agents provide required notice of disputes to CRCs that provided the information to the reseller.
In follow-up reviews, examiners found that one or more resellers developed and implemented enhanced procedures designed to ensure that the reseller(s) promptly conveyed notice of
The Bureau will continue to publish Supervisory Highlights to aid Bureau-supervised entities in their efforts to comply with Federal consumer financial law. The report shares information regarding general supervisory and examination findings regarding the FCRA and Regulation V (without identifying specific institutions). This information is shared, in part, to communicate the Bureau's supervisory expectations to CRCs and furnishers that those institutions comply with the applicable provisions of the FCRA and Regulation V.
Supervision's work in the consumer reporting market is ongoing and remains a high priority. As detailed in this report, CFPB examiners have continued to identify violations and CMS weaknesses regarding critical FCRA and Regulation V protections. However, examiners have also observed significant improvements in these areas, including continued investment in FCRA-related CMS. Supervision will continue to conduct reviews at CRCs, including resellers, as well as at furnishers and users of consumer reports within our supervisory jurisdiction.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
Direct written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this Notice to the Attention: CNCS Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Provide written comments within 30 days of Notice publication.
Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Amy Borgstrom by email to
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the agency's services will be unavailable.
CNCS seeks to renew the current information collection. The information collection will be used in the same manner as the existing application. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application is due to expire on November 30, 2020.
Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 10, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), 1500 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350, Andrew Corso, 703-693-1050.
Every uniformed service member of the Department of Defense and U.S. Coast Guard who retires or reaches the age of eligibility to begin receiving retired pay, in the case of members of the Reserves and National Guard, should voluntarily complete this form to request retired pay, designate and change beneficiaries, and make a SBP election, or decline coverage. Eligible beneficiaries have an ability to voluntarily complete this form to request or waive coverage. The information requested allows the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to establish a retired pay account for that individual as well as eligible covered beneficiaries, provides a record of that retiree's designation of beneficiaries, allows the retiree (if eligible) to make an election of a lump sum of retired pay, and allows the Service member to make an election to participate in the SBP.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel will take place.
Open to the public Wednesday, January 8, 2020, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
The address of the open meeting is the Naval Heritage Center Theater, 701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
Colonel Paul J. Hoerner, USAF, 703-681-2890 (Voice), None (Facsimile),
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.
The Panel will review and comment on recommendations made to the Director of the Defense Health Agency, by the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, regarding the Uniform Formulary.
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 National Security Education Board will take place.
Open to the public Thursday, January 16, 2020 from 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The address of the meeting is the Institute of International Education, 1400 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
Michael Nugent, (571) 256-0702 (Voice), (703) 692-2615 (Facsimile),
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.
The Office of the Under Secretary of the Navy, DoD.
30-day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 10, 2020.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
Angela James, 571-372-7574, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. James at
Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Idaho Cleanup Project. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, February 27, 2020; 3:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m.
Please note the EM SSAB, Idaho Cleanup Project, is starting in the afternoon instead in the morning like previous meetings.
The opportunities for public comment are at 5:15 p.m. and 7:15 p.m.
This time is subject to change; please contact the Federal Coordinator (below) for confirmation of times prior to the meeting.
Residence Inn Idaho Falls, 635 West Broadway, Idaho Falls, ID 83402.
Brad Bugger, Federal Coordinator, U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, MS-1203, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415. Phone (208) 526-0833; or email:
• Recent Public Outreach
• Idaho Cleanup Project (ICP) Overview
• Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Priorities
• Discussion of Agreement with the State of Idaho
• Update on Integrated Waste Treatment Unit (IWTU)
• Wildfire Preparations and Post-fire Restoration
• Consideration of EM SSAB Chairs' Recommendations
• Board Discussion and Subcommittee Follow-up
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Hanford. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, February 5, 2020; 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Thursday, February 6, 2020; 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
Best Western Plus, 1515 George Washington Way, Richland, WA 99354.
JoLynn Garcia, Federal Coordinator, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, P.O. Box 450, H6-60, Richland, WA 99354; Phone: (509) 376-6244; or Email:
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted an information collection request to the OMB for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension of its Programs for Improving Energy Efficiency in Buildings, OMB Control Number 1910-5184. The proposed collection will enable DOE to better understand and improve building energy load management programs including the following four voluntary programs aimed at reducing energy costs and improving occupant comfort in buildings: The Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Program, the Home Energy Score Program, the Better Buildings Residential Network, and the Zero Energy Ready Home Program. The information gathered by DOE in these four programs is necessary for DOE to run the programs effectively.
Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before January 10, 2020. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718.
Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, and to Mr. Chris Early, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE-5B, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121 or by fax at 202-586-4617 or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Mr. Chris Early, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE-5B, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
This information collection request contains: (1)
42 U.S.C. 16191.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Crooked Run Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is December 26, 2019.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Docket Number: PR20-14-000.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Grand Chenier XPress Project involving construction and operation of facilities by ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) in Acadia, Jefferson Davies, and Cameron Parishes, Louisiana. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires the Commission to discover concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues to address in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC, on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 6, 2020.
You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Commission staff will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on October 28, 2019, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP20-8-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be determined by a judge in accordance with state law.
ANR provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC website (
The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. To sign up go to
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP20-8-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
ANR's project consist of: (i) Modifications to its existing Eunice and Grand Chenier Compressor Stations, (ii) construction and operation of a new greenfield compressor station (Mermentau Compressor Station), (iii) modifications to ANR's Mermentau River GCX Meter Station,
The Grand Chenier XPress Project would consist of the following facilities:
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the project would require about 70.7 acres of land during construction. Permanent (operational) impacts associated with the installation of proposed aboveground facilities would total about 16.5 acres associated with foundations or impervious surfaces within the footprint of the planned Mermentau Compressor Station. Following construction all areas temporarily disturbed by construction would be graded, restored to pre-construction contours, and revegetated.
The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• land use;
• air quality and noise;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary
With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office, and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian Tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If the Commission issues the EA for an allotted public comment period, a
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and
Comments must be received on or before January 10, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number and the File Symbol of the EPA registration number of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
7 U.S.C. 136
Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) is giving public notice that the agency has submitted a revision to the information collection described in this notice, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. The public is invited to comment on the revised information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted at the addresses below on or before January 10, 2020.
Comments should be addressed to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Federal Maritime Commission, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503,
A copy of the submission may be obtained by contacting Donna Lee on 202-523-5800 or email:
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), the Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a proposed information collection. On May 16, 2019, the Commission published a 60-day notice and request for comments in the
The proposed revision to Form FMC-32 would add a request for booking or ticket contract number and would remove a request to indicate whether the cruise ended at a U.S. port.
As required by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA), 5 U.S.C. 571
This information collection is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The FMC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. As required by ADRA, 5 U.S.C. 571-574, the information contained in these forms is treated as confidential and subject to the same confidentiality provisions as administrative dispute resolutions pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 574. Except as specifically set forth in 5 U.S.C. 574, neither CADRS staff nor the parties to a dispute resolution shall disclose any
46 U.S.C. 40101
Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) by VerTerra Ltd., hereinafter “Complainant”, against D.B. Group America Ltd. and D.B. Group India Ltd., hereinafter “Respondents”. Complainant states that it “. . . is in the business of creating and selling environmentally sustainable and disposable dinnerware constructed from fallen palm leaves” and is principally located in the New York City area. Complainant states that Respondent D.B. Group America Ltd. is a New York limited company and an NVOCC licensed by the Federal Maritime Commission. Complainant states that Respondent D.B. Group India Ltd. is an NVOCC licensed by the Federal Maritime Commission.
Complainant states that Respondent D.B. Group America Ltd. “. . . handled approximately 293 discreet shipping jobs for [Complainant].” Complainant alleges that Respondents provided service that was not in accordance with any published tariff or reflected in any NSA or NRA between the parties. Complainant also alleges that D.B. Group America Ltd. “. . . had been charging substantially more than it had represented would be the cost of these shipments” in 2018. Complainant alleges that “. . .bills of lading reflect that [Respondent D.B. Group America Ltd.], through [Respondent D.B. Group India Ltd.], was applying `surcharges' and General Rate Increases to the fees it was charging [Complainant], when these surcharges were not applicable and not referenced in its tariff.”
Complainant alleges that Respondents violated 46 U.S.C. 41104, 41104(a), 41104(a)(2), 41104(a)(3), 41104(a)(4), 41104(a)(5), 40501 and 40502. Complainant alleges it “incurred damages in excess of $100,000” and seeks reparations and other relief.
The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's Electronic Reading Room at
This proceeding has been assigned to Office of Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding office in this proceeding shall be issued by December 4, 2020, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by May 18, 2021.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary by email at
Office of Government Ethics (OGE).
Notice of request for agency and public comments.
The U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is publishing this second round notice to request comment regarding its intent to submit modified versions of the 12 OGE model certificates and model documents for qualified trusts to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments by the public and the agencies on this proposed extension are invited and must be received on or before January 10, 2020.
You may submit comments on this notice to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for OGE, via fax at 202-395-6974 or email at
Jennifer Matis at the U.S. Office of Government Ethics; telephone: 202-482-9216; TTY: 800-877-8339; FAX: 202-482-9237; Email:
In order to ensure that all applicable requirements are met, OGE is the sponsoring agency for 12 model certificates and model trust documents for qualified blind and diversified trusts. See 5 CFR 2634.402(e)(3), 2634.402(f)(3), 2634.404(e)-(g), 2634.405(d)(2), 2634.407(a); 2634.408(b)(1)-(3), 2634.408(d)(4), 2634.409, and 2634.414. The various model certificates and model trust documents are utilized by settlors, trustees, and other fiduciaries in establishing and administering these qualified trusts. OGE plans to submit these model certificates and model trust documents (described in detail in the table below) to OMB for renewed approval pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
The 12 model documents, along with their burden estimates, are as follows:
These estimates are based on the amount of time imposed on professional trust administrators or private representatives. OGE notes that only one set of the various model trust provisions (items (B) through (H)) will be prepared for a single qualified trust, and only prior to the establishment of that qualified trust. Likewise, other model documents listed above are used in connection with establishing the qualified trust (items (I), (J), and (K)). The remaining model documents are used after the trust's creation (items (A) and (L)). Accordingly, OGE notes that the majority of the time burden for any given trust is imposed during the creation of the trust.
At the present time, there are no active qualified trusts in the executive branch. However, OGE anticipates possible limited use of these model documents during the forthcoming three-year period. OGE estimates that there may be an average of one individual per year who initiates a qualified trust using these model documents during calendar years 2020 through 2022. OGE has accordingly estimated the average annual number of respondents to be two, which represents one respondent establishing a qualified trust and one respondent maintaining a previously established qualified trust. Based on the above, OGE estimates an average annual time burden during the next three years of 120 hours. Using an estimated rate of $300 per hour for the services of a professional trust administrator or private representative, the estimated annual cost burden is $36,000.
Under OMB's implementing regulations for the Paperwork Reduction Act, any recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirement contained in a rule of general applicability is deemed to involve ten or more persons. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4)(i). Therefore, OGE intends to submit, after this first round notice and comment period, all 12 qualified trust model certificates and model documents described above (all of which are included under OMB paperwork control number 3209-0007) for a three-year extension of approval. At that time, OGE will publish a second notice in the
OGE is committed to making ethics records publicly available to the extent possible. The communications documents and the confidentiality agreements (items (A), (I) and (J) on the table above), once completed, will not be available to the public because they contain sensitive, confidential information. The other completed certificates and documents (except for any trust provisions that relate to the testamentary disposition of trust assets) are retained and made publicly available based upon a proper request under section 105 of the EIGA until the periods for retention of all other reports (usually the OGE Form 278 Public Financial Disclosure Reports) of the individual establishing the trust have lapsed (generally six years after the filing of the last report). See 5 U.S.C. app. 105; 5 CFR 2634.603(g)(2). The information collected with these model trust certificates and model trust documents is part of the OGE/GOVT-1 Governmentwide Privacy Act system of records.
In seeking an extension of approval, OGE is proposing several nonsubstantive changes to the 12 qualified trust certificates and model documents.
First, OGE proposes removing all references to Appendices A and B of 5
Second, OGE proposes removing all references to facsimile as the best means of communication and replacing it with email.
Third, with regard to the model communications (item (A) in the table above), OGE proposes to update the dates in the sample documents to make them more contemporary.
Fourth, OGE proposes to add one sentence to the Privacy Act statements to better notify users of the consequences of not providing the requested information.
Fifth, OGE proposes to make a few minor formatting corrections and to fix a typographical error in the Privacy Act statements.
Sixth, OGE proposes to update the Privacy Act statement in accordance with recent changes made to the OGE/GOVT-1 system of records, covering Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Reports and Other Name-Retrieved Ethics Program Records. The changes were effective on November 8, 2019.
On September 25, 2019, OGE published a first round notice of its intent to request approval for the modified model trust certificates and trust documents under the Paperwork Reduction Act. See 84 FR 50449. OGE received no responses to that notice.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by January 10, 2020.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
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,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
The Minor Use and Minor Species (MUMS) Act (Pub. L. 108-282) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to authorize FDA to establish new regulatory procedures intended to make more medications legally available to veterinarians and animal owners for the treatment of minor animal species as well as uncommon diseases in major animal species. This legislation provides incentives designed to help pharmaceutical companies overcome the financial burdens they face in providing limited-demand animal drugs. These incentives are only available to sponsors whose drugs are “MUMS-designated” by FDA. Minor use drugs are drugs for use in major species (
Our regulations in 21 CFR part 516 specify the criteria and procedures for requesting MUMS designation as well as the annual reporting requirements for MUMS designees. Section 516.20 provides requirements on the content and format of a request for MUMS-drug designation; § 516.26 provides requirements for amending MUMS-drug designation; § 516.27 provides for change in sponsorship of MUMS-drug designation; § 516.29 provides for termination of MUMS-drug designation; § 516.30 contains the requirements for annual reports from sponsor(s) of MUMS-designated drugs; and § 516.36 sets forth consequences for insufficient quantities of MUMS-designated drugs.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The burden estimate for this reporting requirement was derived in our Office of Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Drug Development by extrapolating the investigational new animal drug/new animal drug application reporting requirements for similar actions by this same segment of the regulated industry and from previous interactions with the minor use/minor species community, and has not changed since the last OMB approval.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for VABOMERE and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see the
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 February 10, 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
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: a testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product, VABOMERE (vaborbactam and meropenem) indicated for the treatment of patients 18 years and older with complicated urinary tract infections including pyelonephritis caused by designated susceptible bacteria. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for VABOMERE (U.S. Patent No. 8,680,136) from Rempex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated September 18, 2018, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of VABOMERE represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for VABOMERE is 1,316 days. Of this time, 1,072 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 244 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 12 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health published a Notice in the
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact: The Office of Autism Research Coordination, NIMH, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, MSC 9663, Room 6184, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 or can email your request, including your address to:
In the
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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to 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.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Sleep Disorders Research Advisory Board.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0018 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1) Email. Submit comments to:
(2) Mail. Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0103 in the subject line and the agency name.
(1) Email. Submit comments to:
(2) Mail. Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0086 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1) Email. Submit comments to:
(2) Mail. Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Abstract: This collection of information is used by CBP to make distributions of funds pursuant to the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA). 19 U.S.C. 1675c (repealed by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Public Law 109-171, 7601 (Feb. 8, 2006)). This Act prescribes the administrative procedures under which antidumping and countervailing duties assessed on imported products are distributed to affected domestic producers that petitioned for or supported the issuance of the order under which the duties were assessed. The amount of any distribution afforded to these domestic producers is based on certain qualifying expenditures that they incur after the issuance of the order or finding up to the effective date of the CDSOA's repeal, October 1, 2007. This distribution is known as the continued dumping and subsidy offset. The claims process for the CDSOA program is provided for in 19 CFR 159.61 and 159.63.
A notice is published in the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0031 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1) Email. Submit comments to:
(2) Mail. Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
19 CFR 10.24(d) require that the importer/assembler maintain records for 5 years from the date of the related entry and that they make these records readily available to CBP for audit, inspection, copying, and reproduction. Instructions for complying with this regulation are posted on the CBP.gov website at:
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0067, abstracted below that we will submit to OMB for an extension in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves gathering information from individuals who wish to adopt a TSA canine through the TSA Canine Training Center (CTC) Adoption Program.
Send your comments by February 10, 2020.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.
TSA developed the CTC to train and deploy explosive detection canine teams for TSA and for local, State, and Federal agencies in support of daily activities that protect the transportation domain. Canine teams consist of TSA employees, or local/State law enforcement officers, paired with explosives detection canines. These canine teams are trained on a variety of explosives and screening capabilities based on intelligence data and emerging threats. Canine teams are deployed after successfully undergoing a 10- or 12-week training program and seek certification after additional training within their assigned operational environment.
Of the canines purchased by TSA for purposes of the TSA Canine Program, approximately 83 percent graduate from the training program. These canines are continually assessed to ensure they demonstrate operational proficiency in their environment. The corresponding attrition rate is between 15-18 percent. Attrition arises from canines who do not
Canines that attrite out of the program and not repurposed for other government purposes may be placed for adoption. TSA created the CTC Adoption Program to find suitable individuals or families to adopt the canines and to provide good homes. Individuals seeking to adopt a TSA canine must complete the CTC Adoption Application.
The application is an online application that collects personal information from the public to determine their suitability to adopt a TSA canine. TSA uses the information collected to evaluate the individual seeking to adopt a TSA canine against program guidelines developed by CTC. The collection includes information about the individual's household, personal references, and current pet and veterinarian information. In addition, the individual must agree to transport the canine home from CTC in San Antonio, Texas, and to provide any necessary medical care, including, but not limited to, heartworm and flea preventives, and annual vaccinations, for the duration of the canine's life. TSA also collects an attestation that all information submitted is true.
TSA estimates that annually 300 individuals will complete the adoption application and that it will take approximately 10 minutes or 0.1666 hours. This will give an estimated annual time burden to the public of 50 hours.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is proposing to renew an information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 10, 2020.
Send your comments on this ICR by mail to the BOEM Information Collection Clearance Officer, Anna Atkinson, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Anna Atkinson by email, or by telephone at 703-787-1025.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, BOEM provides the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps BOEM 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.
BOEM is soliciting comments on the proposed ICR described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of BOEM; (2) what can BOEM do to ensure that this information is processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the burden estimate accurate; (4) how might BOEM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might BOEM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including minimizing the burden through the use of information technology?
Comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. BOEM will include or summarize each comment in our request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval of this ICR. You should be aware that your entire comment—including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. In order for BOEM to withhold from disclosure your personally identifiable information, you must identify any information contained in the submittal of your comments that, if released, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of your personal privacy. You must also briefly describe any possible harmful consequences of the disclosure of information, such as embarrassment, injury, or other harm. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
BOEM protects proprietary information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Department of the Interior's implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2).
Since 2017, 12 projects have been processed. In order for BOEM to continue to meet the needs of local and state governments, information regarding upcoming projects must be acquired to plan for future projects and anticipated workload. Therefore, BOEM will issue calls for information about needed resources and locations from interested parties to develop and maintain a project schedule. It also includes the potential for a call in response to an emergency declaration, such as a hurricane or tropical storm. This ICR has no significant changes from the 2017 OMB approved information collection.
In the event the number of requested projects exceeds the limits of the current BOEM staff and funding resources, BOEM may request the relevant states to prioritize their own projects based on several criteria including likelihood of
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
United States International Trade Commission.
December 12, 2019 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote on Inv. Nos. 701-TA-612-613 and 731-TA-1429-1430 (Final) (Polyester Textured Yarn from China and India). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission by January 2, 2020.
5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
The Commission is holding the meeting under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b). In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on November 5, 2019, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Adolf Meller Co dba Meller Optics Inc., Providence, RI; All Points Logistics, LLC, Merritt Island, FL; Arconic Defense Inc., New Kensington, PA; Ascent Vision Technologies, LLC, Belgrade, MT; ATS-MER, LLC, Tucson, AZ; Avineon, Inc., McLean, VA; Calculagraph Co DBA Control Products, Inc., Horsham, PA; Contego Research, LLC, Webb City, MO; DroneShield LLC, Warrenton, VA; Fairwinds Technologies, LLC, Annapolis, MD; JWF Defense Systems, LLC, Johnstown, PA; Molex, LLC, Lisle, IL; nanoMetallix LLC, Saint Louis, MO; NAVSYS Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO; NextGen Federal Systems, LLC, Morgantown, VA; Nufern, East Granby, CT; Orbis Sibro, Inc., Charleston, SC; PPI-Time Zero, Inc., Fairfield, NJ; Riptide Autonomous Solutions, Plymouth, MA; SAZE Technologies, LLC, Silver Spring, MD; SMH International, LLC, Mt. Laurel, NJ; TELEGRID Technologies, Inc., Florham Park, NJ; TORC Robotics, Inc., Blacksburg, VA; Total Reliant Consulting, Boerne, TX; and UTEC Corporation, LLC, Norman, OK, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NAC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 2, 2000, NAC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on July 8, 2019. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on October 24, 2019, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: A. Harold & Associates, LLC, Jacksonville, FL; AAI Corporation d/b/a Textron Systems, Hunt Valley, MD; AAR, Wood Dale, IL; Abaco Systems, Huntsville, AL; ABSI Aerospace and Defense, California, MD; Accenture Federal Services LLC, Arlington, VA; Acuity Systems, LLC, Herndon, VA; Adams Communication and Engineering Technology (ACET), Lexington Park, MD; Addx Corporation, Alexandria, VA; ADS, Inc., Virginia Beach, VA; Advanced Aircraft Company, Hampton, VA; Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc., Jupiter, FL; Advanced Onion, Inc., Monterey, CA; Aeroflex Wichita, Inc., Wichita, KS; Aeronix, Inc., Melbourne, FL; Agile Defense, Inc., Reston, VA; Agilious, Bethesda, MD; Agyle Networks, LLC, Plano, TX; Airborne Systems North America, Santa Ana, CA; AIRtec Inc., California, MD; AIXI, Raleigh, NC; ALEX-Alternative Experts, LLC, Dumfries, VA; Alfresco Software, Inc., Alexandria, VA; Alion Science and Technology Corporation, Lusby, MD; Almond Consulting Group, Inc., Oviedo, FL; Alta Via Consulting, LLC, Alexandria, VA; AM Pierce & Associates, Inc., California, MD; Amazon Web Services, Inc., Seattle, WA; American Systems Corporation, Chantilly, VA; Ampex Data Systems Corporation, Hayward, CA; Andromeda Systems Incorporated, Orange Park, FL; ANSOL, Inc., San Diego, CA; Apcerto, Ashburn, VA; Appian Logic, Great Falls, VA; Applied Energetics, Tucson, AZ; Applied Signals Intelligence, Sterling, VA; Applied Techniques Corporation, Lexington Park, MD; Applied Technology, Inc., King George, VA; Arrowhead Global, LLC, Clearwater, FL; ART Rugged Systems, Inc., El Dorado Hills, CA; Artisan Electronics, Odon, IN; Assurance Technology Corporation, Carlisle, MA; ATC-NY, Ithaca, NY; ATI Defense, Arlington, VA; Attollo, LLC, Lincoln, RI; Auburn University, Auburn, AL; AURA Technologies, Raleigh, NC; Avatar Partners, Inc., Virginia Beach, VA; AVIAN, Inc., Lexington Park, MD; Avineon, Inc., McLean, VA; AVT Simulation, Orlando, FL; Axellio Inc., Colorado Springs, CO; BAE Systems, California, MD; Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corporation, Westminster, CO; Base2 Engineering, LLC, Annapolis, MD; Bell Textron, Inc., Fort Worth, TX; Berg Manufacturing, Inc., Spokane, WA; Bevilacqua Research Corporation, Huntsville, AL; BGI, LLC, Akron, OH; BiTMICRO Networks, Inc., Fremont, CA; BlackLynx, Rockville, MD; Blue Ivy Partners, Arlington, VA; BMC Software, Inc., McLean, VA; BMNT, Palo Alto, CA; Boeing Global Services, Burien, WA; Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., McLean, VA; BriteWerx, Inc., Aldie, VA; Business Integra, Bethesda, MD; CACI, Inc.—FEDERAL, Chantilly, VA; Cambridge International Systems, Inc., Arlington, VA; CAMX Power, LLC, Lexington, MA; Cape Henry Associates, Inc., Virginia Beach, VA; Carolina Unmanned Vehicles, Raleigh, NC; CaVU Consulting, Inc., San Diego, CA; CDW-G, Vernon Hills, IL; Centauri, Chantilly, VA; Chainalysis, Inc., Washington, DC; Cherokee Nation Red Wing, LLC, Huntsville, AL; Chesapeake Technology International Corporation, California, MD; Cintel, Inc., Huntsville, AL; Cisco Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA; Clason Point Partners, Inc., Yonkers, NY; Clear Align, LLC, Columbia, MD; Clear Ridge Defense, LLC, Nashua, NH; clearAvenue, LLC, Baltimore, MD; CLK Executive Decisions, LLC, Poquoson, VA; Cloud Front Group, Inc., McLean, VA; Cloudera Government Solutions Inc., Reston, VA; CMC Electronics, Buford, GA; Coalition Solutions Integrated, Inc., Hollywood, MD; CoAspire, LLC, Fairfax, VA; CodeMettle, Atlanta, GA; Coherent Technical Services, Inc., Lexington Park, MD; Collins Aerospace, Palo, IA; Colorado Engineering, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO; Colvin Run Networks LLC, Great Falls, VA; Commonwealth Trading Partners, Inc., Alexandria, VA; Compendium Federal Technology, Lexington Park, MD; Concurrent Technologies Corporation, Johnstown, PA; Consortium Management Group, Inc., Washington, DC; CORAS, Inc., McLean,
The general area of NASC's planned activity is to execute and implement an Other Transaction Agreement (“OT Agreement”) with the U.S. Government (“Government”) (a) for the funding of certain research, development, testing and evaluation of prototypes leading to follow-on project production to be conducted as a collaboration between the Government and the NASC Members, to enhance the capabilities of the Government and its departments and agencies in the development of prototypes and full production thereof in the critical technology field of naval aviation (“NASC Mission”); (b) to participate in the establishment of sound technical and programmatic performance goals based on the needs and requirements of the Government's naval aviation Technology Objectives;
On December 3, 2019, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the lawsuit entitled
In a Complaint that was filed simultaneously with the Consent Decree, the United States and seven states and state or local agencies seek injunctive relief against Lehigh Cement Company LLC (“Lehigh”) and Lehigh White Cement Company, LLC (“Lehigh White”) and penalties against Lehigh, pursuant to Sections 113(b) and 167 of the Clean Air Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. 7413(b) and 7477, for alleged violations of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492; the nonattainment New Source Review provisions of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7515; the federally-approved and enforceable state implementation plans, which incorporate and/or implement the above listed requirements; and corresponding state laws. The Complaint alleges claims at one or more of eleven Portland cement facilities located in eight states owned or operated by Lehigh or Lehigh White. The states and state or local agencies that have joined the Complaint and are signatories to the Consent Decree consist of Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, New York, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the Jefferson County Board of Health (Alabama), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (California).
The Consent Decree would require installation of emissions control technology for nitrogen oxides (NO
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
We will provide a paper copy of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
Please enclose a check or money order for $26.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of Labor's (DOL's) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Benefits Timeliness and Quality Review System.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by February 10, 2020.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden, may be obtained free by contacting Candace Edens by telephone at 202-693-3195 (this is not a toll-free number), TTY 1-877-889-5627 (this is not a toll-free number), or by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room S-4524, Washington, DC 20210; by email:
DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
The burden information for the ETA 9057 has been revised to adjust the number of small and large states to
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, (
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
Notice.
The Department of Labor's (DOL's), Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Petition for Classifying Labor Surplus Areas.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by February 10, 2020.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden, may be obtained free by contacting Donald Haughton by telephone at 202-693-2784, TTY 1-877-889-5627 (this is not a toll-free number), or by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce Investment, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room C-4510, Washington DC, 20210; by email:
Donald Haughton by telephone at 202-693-2784 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
Under Executive Orders 12073 and 10582, and 20 CFR parts 651 and 654, the Secretary of Labor is required to classify Labor Surplus Areas (LSAs) and disseminate this information for the use of all Federal agencies. This information is used by Federal agencies for various purposes including procurement decisions, waiver decisions for the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, certain small business loan decisions, as well as other purposes determined by the agencies. The LSA list is issued annually, effective October 1 of each year, utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Areas meeting the criteria are classified as LSAs.
Department regulations specify that the Department can add other areas to the annual LSA listing under the exceptional circumstance criteria. Such additions are based on information contained in petitions submitted by the state workforce agencies (SWAs) to ETA. These petitions contain specific economic information about an area to provide ample justification for adding the area to the LSA listing under the exceptional circumstances criteria. The
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, (
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) Office of Federal Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is submitting the sponsored information collection request (ICR) proposal titled, “Construction Compliance Check Letters,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before January 10, 2020.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OFCCP, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Frederick Licari by telephone at 202-693-8073, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks PRA authority for the Construction Compliance Check Letters information collection. OFCCP will conduct compliance checks of construction contractors. The compliance check is an investigative method to help contractors comply with OFCCP's Affirmative Action Program (AAP) and recordkeeping requirements. An annual AAP is fundamental to maintaining an active system capable of providing ongoing equal employment opportunity through affirmative action and ensuring nondiscrimination.
This proposed information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB, under the PRA, approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility:
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The National Science Board's Committee on Awards and Facilities (A&F), pursuant to National Science Foundation 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 notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
Monday, December 16, 2019, from 3:00-4:00 p.m. EST.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. An audio link will be available for the public. Members of the public must contact the Board Office to request the public audio link by sending an email to
Open.
Committee Chair's opening remarks; discussion of NSB process for approval of MSRI-2 awards; Committee Chair's closing remarks.
Point of contact for this meeting is: Elise Lipkowitz,
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
1.
2.
3.
4.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 5, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service ® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 5, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service ® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 5, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service ® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 5, 2019, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15b11-1 provides that a broker or dealer may register by notice pursuant to section 15(b)(11)(A) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78
The Commission staff estimates that the total annual reporting burden associated with Rule 15b11-1 and Form BD-N is approximately two hours, based on an average of two initial notice registrations per year that each take approximately 30 minutes to complete, for one hour, plus an average of three amendments per year that each take approximately fifteen minutes to complete, for 0.75 hours, rounded up to one hour, for a total of two hours.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Charles Riddle, Acting Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
On October 3, 2019, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 147 is a safe harbor under the Securities Act Section 3(a)(11)(15 U.S.C. 77c(a)(11)) exemption from registration. To qualify for the safe harbor, Rule 147(f)(1)(iii) (17 CFR 230.147) will require the issuer to obtain from the purchaser a written representation as to the purchaser's residency. Under Rule 147, the purchaser in the offering must be a resident of the same state or territory in which the issuer is a resident. While the formal representation of residency by itself is not sufficient to establish a reasonable belief that such purchasers are in-state residents, the representation requirement, together with the reasonable belief standard, may result in better compliance with the rule and maintaining appropriate investor protections. The representation of residency is not provided to the Commission. Approximately 700 respondents provide the information required by Rule 147(f)(1)(iii) at an estimated 2.75 hours per response for a total annual reporting burden of 1,925 hours (2.75 hours × 700 responses).
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
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 control number.
Please direct your written comment to Charles Riddle, Acting Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form SD (17 CFR 249b-400) under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
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 control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Notice is hereby given that Ballast Point Ventures III, L.P., 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2300, Tampa, FL 33602, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing in a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act, Section 107.730, Financings which constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Ballast Point Ventures III, L.P. proposes to invest $2 million in YPrime Inc., 9 Great Valley Parkway, Malvern, PA 19355, in a proposed $5 million follow-on financing led by a significant sophisticated third party. The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because Ballast Point Ventures II, LP and Ballast Point Ventures EF II, LP (together “BPV II”) and YPrime Inc. are Associates to the Licensee. YPrime is expected to receive $5 million from a proposed $5 million follow-on financing. Thus, this transaction constitutes a Conflict of Interest requiring SBA's prior written exemption.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on this transaction within fifteen days of the date of this publication to the Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be exhibited in the exhibition “Madame d'Ora,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Neue Galerie New York, in New York, New York, from on or about February 20, 2020, until on or about June 8, 2020, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Chi D. Tran, Paralegal Specialist, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
On November 21, 2019, Alcoa Energy Services, Inc. (AESI), filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903 for AESI to abandon approximately six miles of railroad line extending between milepost 0.0 at a point of connection with Union Pacific Railroad Company at Marjorie, Tex., and milepost 6.0 at Sandow, Tex. (the Line).
AESI acquired the Line in 2018.
AESI believes that it possesses fee title interest in the underlying right-of-way, and, as such, that there is no federally granted right-of-way along the route. Any documentation in the railroad's possession regarding federally granted right-of-way will be made available promptly to those requesting it.
AESI states that, because it proposes to abandon its entire railroad system, it is appropriate that no labor protective conditions be imposed. (Pet. 7 (citing
By issuance of this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by March 10, 2020.
Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 120 days after the filing of the petition for exemption, or 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption, whichever occurs sooner. Persons interested in submitting an OFA must first file a formal expression of intent to file an offer by December 23, 2019, indicating the type of financial assistance they wish to provide (
Following authorization for abandonment, the Line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for interim trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than December 31, 2019.
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. AB 1291X, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on AESI's representative, Robert A. Wimbish, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60606. Replies to this petition are due on or before December 31, 2019.
Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245-0238 or refer to the full abandonment regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary) prepared by OEA will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who comment during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact OEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days of the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA generally will be within 30 days of its service.
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Allison C. Davis, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that by letter received December 3, 2019, Colorado Pacific Railroad, LLC (CXR) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 234. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2019-0103.
Specifically, CXR seeks a waiver from the requirements of 49 CFR 234.247,
The line runs from milepost (MP) 747.50 in Towner, Colorado, to NA Junction, Colorado, at MP 869.40. CXR purchased the line in 2017, but it has not yet started operations pending repair and rehabilitation of the tracks that have been neglected for many years.
CXR explains the HRGC warning signal system at each of the five locations has been vandalized. CXR intends to rehabilitate the tracks to meet FRA Class 2 standards with 25 miles per hour (MPH) operation, with 10 MPH in Eads, Colorado, and Ordway, Colorado, with an average of one train per day. Applications to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission have been made for the five involved HRGCs. Four of the five applications seek changing the active crossings to passive crossings, and one application seeks to remove the gates, but keep the flashers.
CXR explains it only seeks permission to temporarily use flagmen at five HRGCs in relatively small Colorado towns to allow rail service pending the reconstruction of rail signaling and equipment. The expectation is that no more than one train of 25 cars per day would be transported over these HRGCs for a period of 10 weeks. This rail service would be over an approximately 62-mile-long segment of CXR's 122-mile rail line. This segment extends from Haswell, Colorado, eastward to Towner, Colorado, where the CXR track interchanges with the track of the Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad.
CXR states there is a present urgency to permit this rail service. Area wheat and milo farmers, in reliance upon restoration of rail service to this territory, have delivered so much grain to one Haswell facility, that it has been necessary to store a veritable mountain of it on the ground. 2019 saw near record rainfall in this territory, resulting in above average harvest amounts. To avoid the waste of these harvested crops, expedited approval of flagman service to allow opening of the railroad to service is necessary.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by January 10, 2020 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petitions.
Mack Trucks Inc., (Mack) and Volvo Trucks North America (Volvo) have determined that certain model year (MY) 2014-2019 Mack Trucks and certain MY 2014-2019 Volvo Trucks do not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 101,
John Finneran, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202) 366-5289, facsimile (202) 366-3081.
Mack and Volvo have determined that certain MY 2014-2019 Mack Trucks and that certain MY 2014-2019 Volvo Trucks do not comply with Table 2 of FMVSS 101,
Notice of receipt of Mack's and Volvo's petitions was published with a 30-day public comment period on August 21, 2019, in the
Approximately 95,000 MY 2014-2019 Mack Anthem, Granite, LR, Pinnacle, TerraPro, and Titan Trucks, manufactured between September 1, 2013, and August 13, 2018, are potentially involved.
Approximately 130,000 MY 2014-2019 Volvo VAH, VHD, VNL, VNM, VNR VNX, and VT Trucks, manufactured between September 1, 2013, and August 13, 2018, are potentially involved.
Mack and Volvo explained that the noncompliance is that the Low Brake Air Pressure telltale for air brake systems does not display the words “Brake Air,” as specified in Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101. The subject Mack vehicles include various combinations of low air telltales, pressure gauges, and available alerts, and the subject Volvo vehicles include both visual and audible warnings that are not an exact match to the “Brake Air” telltale requirement.
Paragraphs S5 and S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 101 include the requirements relevant to these petitions. Each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus that is fitted with a control, a telltale, or an indicator listed in Table 1 or Table 2 must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 101 for the location, identification, color, and illumination of that control, telltale or indicator.
Each control, telltale and indicator that is listed in column 1 of Table 1 or Table 2 must be identified by the symbol specified for it in column 2 or the word or abbreviation specified for it in column 3 of Table 1 or Table 2.
Mack and Volvo both described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Mack and Volvo submitted the following views and arguments in support of the petitions:
1. Both Mack and Volvo provide a visual and audible alarm along with air pressure gauges and feel that their vehicles, even though non-compliant, meet the intent of the regulation to provide a clear and visible warning to the driver when the air pressure in the service reservoir system is below 60 psi.
2. For Mack Granite, Pinnacle, and Titan model vehicles that are 2018 and earlier, the display includes two gauges and a red low air pressure indicator lamp for each gauge. When a low air pressure situation occurs, the driver is warned through the gauge, a red indicator lamp in each gauge, and an audible warning.
3. For Mack LR model vehicles, two pressure gauges, a low air telltale, a popup in the display, and an audible alarm are provided.
4. For Mack TerraPro model vehicles, pressure gauges, a low air telltale, and an audible alarm are provided.
5. In 2019 and later Anthem, Pinnacle, and Granite model vehicles, pressure gauges, a low air pressure pop-up (System Air Pressure is Low), and an audible alarm are provided.
6. For Volvo, 2014-2019 models, the display includes two gauges and a red low air pressure indicator lamp for each gauge. When a low air pressure situation occurs, the driver is warned through the gauge, a red indicator lamp in each gauge, and an audible warning. On all models and model years, a pop-up (Low System Air Pressure) is provided in addition to the gauges, a low-pressure indicator, and an audible alarm.
Both Mack and Volvo concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that their petitions to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
Any manufacturer that determines a noncompliance to exist and intends to petition the agency, pursuant to 49 CFR part 556.4(c), must submit their petition no later than 30 days after such determination. Both Mack and Volvo submitted their petitions 25 days past the 30-day requirement. However, due to the nature of the noncompliance and considering that the agency has previously granted similar inconsequential noncompliance petitions, in this case, the agency has decided to accept both Mack and Volvo's petitions.
NHTSA has considered the arguments presented by Mack and Volvo and has determined that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA believes that the subject noncompliance poses no risk to motor vehicle safety for the reasons discussed below:
1. When a low air pressure situation exists, each vehicle has a low system air pressure indicator illuminated in red with a black background. There are no requirements in FMVSS No. 101 for the color of the telltale but the petitioner's use of red, which is an accepted color representing an urgent condition, provides a definitive indication of a situation that needs attention.
2. Simultaneous to the illumination of the low system air pressure indicators is activation of an audible alert, further notifying the operator that a malfunction exists, requiring corrective action. Although the alert would not, in and of itself, identify the problem, a driver would be prompted by the warning tone to heed the other indicators.
3. In a low-pressure situation, the operator is provided additional feedback by the primary and secondary instrument cluster air gauges which are marked with numerical values in PSI units with red shading denoting the low-pressure range.
4. The Agency believes that the functionality of the parking brake system and the braking performance of the service brake system remain unaffected by the use of multiple different indicators and audible alerts instead of the words “Brake Air” on the subject vehicles.
5. Lastly, NHTSA believes that, as the affected trucks are predominately used as commercial vehicles with professional drivers, operators will monitor their vehicle's condition and take note of any warning signs and gauge readings to ensure proper functionality of all systems. Also, professional drivers will become familiar with the meaning of the telltales and other warnings and the feedback provided to the driver in these vehicles, if a low brake pressure condition exists, would be well understood.
NHTSA concludes that simultaneous activation of the red low air pressure indicators, an audible alert for a low air pressure condition, along with the primary and secondary air gauge indicators, provide adequate notification to the operator that a brake malfunction exists.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Mack and Volvo have met their burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 101 noncompliance is, in each case, inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Mack and Volvo's petitions are hereby granted, and they are exempted from the obligation to provide notification of and remedy for, the subject noncompliance in the affected vehicles under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only applies to the subject vehicle that Mack and Volvo no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Mack and Volvo notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
PHMSA is publishing this notice as a general informational announcement concerning the issuance of a special permit. The special permit authorizes the grantee to transport Methane, refrigerated liquid (
Comments must be received to Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0025 by December 23, 2019. To the extent practicable, PHMSA will consider late-filed comments in development of a potential final rule.
You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number PHMSA-2018-0025 (HM-264) via any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Donald Burger, Approvals and Permits (PHH-30), Telephone (202) 366-4535, or Michael Ciccarone, Standards and Rulemaking Division (PHH-10),
On June 6, 2019, PHMSA published a Notice of Draft Environmental Assessment for a Special Permit Request for Liquefied Natural Gas by Rail (PHMSA-2019-0100-0002) in the
The comment period closed on August 7, 2019. PHMSA received approximately 2,985 comments to the docket for the notice. In consideration of the request for special permit and the 2,985 comments received to the notice, PHMSA completed a technical evaluation and a revised EA. For more information on the comments received please see the revised EA,
The special permit—as issued—includes certain operational controls that were not included in the draft special permit, draft EA, and the “Hazardous Materials: Liquefied Natural Gas by Rail” (HM-264) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). Specifically, paragraph 7.c of the special permit states the following:
7.c. OPERATIONAL CONTROLS:
(1) Each tank car must be operated in accordance with § 173.319 except as specified in paragraph 7.a. above.
(2) Shipments are authorized between Wyalusing, PA and Gibbstown, NJ, with no intermediate stops.
(3) Within 90 days after issuance, the grantee shall prepare and submit a plan providing per shipment quantities, timelines, and other actions to be taken for moving from single car shipments to multi-car shipments, and subsequently to unit trains (20 or more tank cars).
(4) Trains transporting 20 or more tank cars authorized under this special permit must be equipped and operated with a two-way end of train device as defined in 49 CFR 232.5 or distributed power as defined in 49 CFR 229.5.
(5) Prior to the initial shipment of a tank car under this special permit, the grantee must provide training to emergency response agencies that could be affected between the authorized origin and destination. The training shall conform to NFPA-472,
(6) While in transportation, the grantee must remotely monitor each tank car for pressure, location, and leaks.
These operational controls were added as a result of PHMSA's consideration of the comments received to the draft EA, PHMSA invites comments on these operational controls to be submitted to the rulemaking docket (Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0025). We encourage commenters to provide data on the safety or economic impacts associated with operational controls in the special permit, including analysis of the safety benefits and the potential cost-benefit impact of implementing these or other operational controls.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before December 26, 2019.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before January 10, 2020.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before January 10, 2020.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The 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 (SDN 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. Additionally, OFAC is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been removed from the SDN List. Their property and interests in property are no longer blocked, and U.S. persons are no longer generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See Supplementary Information section for effective date(s).
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On December 5, 2019, OFAC determined that the property and
1. ALVARES, Carlos, Moscow, Russia; DOB 18 May 1971; POB Spain; Gender Male; National ID No. AV176942 (Spain) (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: EVIL CORP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(B) of Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities,” as amended by Executive Order 13757 of December 28, 2016, “Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities,” (E.O. 13694, as amended), for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
2. BASHLIKOV, Aleksei, Moscow, Russia; DOB 18 Mar 1988; POB Russia; Gender Male; Passport 4509592875 (Russia) (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: EVIL CORP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
3. BURKHONOVA, Gulsara, Moscow, Russia; DOB 06 Apr 1977; POB Russia; alt. POB Tajikistan; Gender Female; Passport 9707561379 (Russia) (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: EVIL CORP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
4. GUBERMAN, David, Moscow, Russia; DOB 01 Mar 1971; POB Ukraine; Gender Male; National ID No. 7201105 (Israel) (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: EVIL CORP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
5. MANIDIS, Georgios, Moscow, Russia; DOB 23 Aug 1971; Gender Male; National ID No. AV2752462 (Greece) (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: EVIL CORP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
6. SAFAROV, Azamat, Moscow, Russia; DOB 26 Mar 1990; POB Uzbekistan; Gender Male; National ID No. CE2236830 (Uzbekistan) (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: EVIL CORP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
7. SHEVCHUK, Tatiana, Moscow, Russia; DOB 08 Jan 1970; Gender Female; National ID No. BB299742 (Ukraine) (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: EVIL CORP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
8. ZAMULKO, Ruslan, Moscow, Russia; DOB 25 Jun 1970; POB Ukraine; Gender Male; National ID No. HB698865 (Ukraine) (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: EVIL CORP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
9. GUSEV, Denis Igorevich (Cyrillic: ГУСЕВ, ДЕНИС ИГОРЕВИЧ) (a.k.a. GOTMAN, David; a.k.a. POMOJAC, Marin), Moscow, Russia; DOB 10 Jun 1986; alt. DOB 08 Jul 1977; alt. DOB 07 Oct 1987; POB Moscow, Russia; alt. POB Ceadir-Lunga, Moldova; citizen Russia; Gender Male; Passport 717386212 (Russia); alt. Passport A1167292 (Moldova); alt. Passport 1213007 (Israel) (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: EVIL CORP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
10. PLOTNITSKIY, Andrey (a.k.a. KOVALSKIY, Andrey Vechislavovich; a.k.a. STREL, Andrey), Moscow, Russia; DOB 25 Jul 1989; Gender Male (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: EVIL CORP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
11. SLOBODSKOY, Dmitriy Alekseyevich, Russia; DOB 28 Jul 1988; Gender Male; Passport 721007353 (Russia) (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: EVIL CORP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
12. SLOBODSKOY, Kirill Alekseyevich, Moscow, Russia; DOB 26 Feb 1987; POB Moscow, Russia; nationality Russia; Gender Male; Passport 721025114 (Russia); National ID No. 4508818947 (Russia) (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: EVIL CORP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
13. SMIRNOV, Dmitriy Konstantinovich, Moscow, Russia; DOB 10 Nov 1987; citizen Russia; Gender Male (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: EVIL CORP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
14. TUCHKOV, Ivan Dmitriyevich, Russia; DOB 27 Nov 1986; POB Moscow, Russia; Gender Male; Passport 45092006504 (Russia); alt. Passport 753931329 (Russia); VisaNumberID 525867504 (France) (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: EVIL CORP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
15. TURASHEV, Igor Olegovich (a.k.a. “ENKI”; a.k.a. “NINTUTU”), Russia; DOB 15 Jun 1981; Gender Male (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: EVIL CORP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
16. YAKUBETS, Maksim Viktorovich (a.k.a. “AQUA”), Moscow, Russia; DOB 20 May 1987; POB Polonnoye, Khmelnitskaya Oblast, Ukraine; citizen Russia; Gender Male; Passport 4509135586 (Russia) (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: EVIL CORP; Linked To: FEDERAL SECURITY SERVICE).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the FEDERAL SECURITY SERVICE, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
17. YAKUBETS, Artem Viktorovich, Moscow, Russia; DOB 17 Jan 1986; POB Polonnoye, Khmelnitskaya Oblast, Ukraine; citizen Russia; Gender Male (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: EVIL CORP).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial material or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, EVIL CORP, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
1. EVIL CORP (a.k.a. DRIDEX GANG), Moscow, Russia; Moldova [CYBER2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(ii)(D) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for being responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or substantial part, outside of the United States that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States and that have the purpose or effect of causing a significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain.
2. BIZNES-STOLITSA, OOO (Cyrillic: ООО БИЗНЕС-СТОЛИЦА) (a.k.a. OBSHCHESTVO S OGRANICHENNOI OTVETSTVENNOSTYU BIZNES-STOLITSA), d. 14 korp. 1 pom. Khll/kom. 1, ul., Sokolovo-Meshcherskaya Moscow, Moscow 125466, Russia; D-U-N-S Number 50-722-4994; Tax ID No. 7733904024 (Russia); Government Gazette Number 40335667 (Russia); Registration Number 5147746417682 (Russia) [CYBER2] (Linked To: GUSEV, Denis Igorevich).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for being owned or controlled by DENIS IGOREVICH GUSEV, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
3. OPTIMA, OOO (Cyrillic: ООО ОПТИМА) (a.k.a. OBSHCHESTVO S OGRANICHENNOI OTVETSTVENNOSTYU OPTIMA), d. 2 korp. 2 pom. 1, ul., Kominterna Moscow, Moscow 129344, Russia; D-U-N-S Number 50-579-8144; Tax ID No. 7716740680 (Russia); Government Gazette Number 17325717 (Russia); Registration Number 1137746232260 (Russia) [CYBER2] (Linked To: GUSEV, Denis Igorevich).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for being owned or controlled by DENIS IGOREVICH GUSEV, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
4. TREID-INVEST, OOO (Cyrillic: ООО ТРЕЙД-ИНВЕСТ) (a.k.a. OBSHCHESTVO S OGRANICHENNOI OTVETSTVENNOSTYU TREID-INVEST), 11/2, ul., Sadovaya-Chernogryazskaya Moscow, Moscow
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for being owned or controlled by DENIS IGOREVICH GUSEV, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
5. TSAO, OOO (Cyrillic: ООО ЦАО) (a.k.a. OBSHCHESTVO S OGRANICHENNOI OTVETSTVENNOSTYU TSENTR AVTOOBSLUZHIVANIYA), 9, per., Omski Kurgan, Kurganskaya Oblast 640000, Russia; D-U-N-S Number 68-215-4722; Tax ID No. 4501122896 (Russia); Government Gazette Number 78739479 (Russia); Registration Number 1064501172394 (Russia) [CYBER2] (Linked To: GUSEV, Denis Igorevich).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for being owned or controlled by DENIS IGOREVICH GUSEV, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
6. VERTIKAL, OOO (Cyrillic: ООО ВЕРТИКАЛЬ) (a.k.a. OBSHCHESTVO S OGRANICHENNOI OTVETSTVENNOSTYU VERTIKAL), d. 102/1, ul. Beregovaya Kogalym, Khanty-Mansiski, Avtonomny Okrug—Yugra Okr. 628482, Russia; D-U-N-S Number 50-630-4726; Tax ID No. 8608056026 (Russia); Government Gazette Number 26149774 (Russia); Registration Number 1138608000189 (Russia) [CYBER2] (Linked To: GUSEV, Denis Igorevich).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for being owned or controlled by DENIS IGOREVICH GUSEV, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
7. YUNIKOM, OOO (Cyrillic: ООО ЮНИКОМ) (a.k.a. OBSHCHESTVO S OGRANICHENNOI OTVETSTVENNOSTYU YUNIKOM), d. 18, ul. Tsentralnaya Kogalym, Khanty-Mansiski, Avtonomny Okrug—Yugra Okr. 628483, Russia; D-U-N-S Number 68-321-9795; Tax ID No. 8608052180 (Russia); Government Gazette Number 97396163 (Russia); Registration Number 1068608008204 (Russia) [CYBER2] (Linked To: GUSEV, Denis Igorevich).
Designated pursuant to section 1(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for being owned or controlled by DENIS IGOREVICH GUSEV, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694, as amended.
On December 5, 2019, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following person are unblocked, and removed this person from the SDN List.
1. AMHAZ, Issam Mohamad (a.k.a. AMHAZ, 'Isam; a.k.a. AMHAZ, Issam Mohamed), Ghadir, 5th Floor, Safarat, Bir Hassan, Jenah, Lebanon; Issam Mohamad Amhaz Property, Ambassades (Safarate), Bir Hassan Area, Ghobeiri, Baabda, Lebanon; DOB 04 Mar 1967; POB Baalbek, Lebanon; nationality Lebanon; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations; Passport RL0000199 (Lebanon); Identification Number 61 Nabha; Chairman, Stars Group Holding; General Manager, Teleserveplus (individual) [SDGT].
Request for Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee membership applications.
The United States Mint is accepting applications for membership to the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) for a new member specially qualified to serve on the CCAC by virtue of his or her education, training, or experience in
Jennifer Warren, United States Mint Liaison to the CCAC; 801 Ninth Street NW; Washington, DC 20220, or call 202-354-7200.
Pursuant to United States Code, Title 31, section 5135(b), the United States Mint is accepting applications for membership to the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) for a new member specially qualified to serve on the CCAC by virtue of his or her education, training, or experience in
Advise the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals produced by the United States Mint.
Advise the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the events, persons, or places that the CCAC recommends to be commemorated by the issuance of commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the year in which a commemorative coin designation is made.
Make recommendations with respect to the mintage level for any commemorative coin recommended.
Total membership consists of 11 voting members appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury:
One person specially qualified by virtue of his or her education, training, or experience as nationally or internationally recognized curator in the United States of a numismatic collection;
One person specially qualified by virtue of his or her experience in the medallic arts or sculpture;
One person specially qualified by virtue of his or her education, training, or experience in American history;
One person specially qualified by virtue of his or her education, training, or experience in numismatics;
Three persons who can represent the interests of the general public in the coinage of the United States; and
Four persons appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury on the basis of the recommendations by the U.S. House and Senate leadership.
Members are appointed for a term of four years. No individual may be appointed to the CCAC while serving as an officer or employee of the Federal Government.
The CCAC is subject to the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. Meetings of the CCAC are open to the public and are held approximately six to eight times per year. The United States Mint is responsible for providing the necessary support, technical services, and advice to the CCAC. CCAC members are not paid for their time or services, but, consistent with Federal Travel Regulations, members are reimbursed for their travel and lodging expenses to attend meetings. Members are Special Government Employees and are subject to the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2653).
The United States Mint will review all submissions and will forward its recommendations to the Secretary of the Treasury for appointment consideration. Candidates should include specific skills, abilities, talents, and credentials to support their applications. The
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
In response to the United States Supreme Court decision in
We must receive your comments on or before January 10, 2020.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
If you are submitting comments electronically, we strongly encourage you to submit any comments or attachments in Microsoft Word format. If you must submit a comment in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF), we strongly encourage you to convert the PDF to print-to-PDF format or to use some other commonly used searchable text format.
•
•
For information related to faith-based issues, contact Lynn Mahaffie at (202) 453-7862 or by email at
For information related to the TEACH Grant Program, contact Sophia McArdle at (202) 453-6318 or by email at
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
In response to the Supreme Court's decision in
• Ensure that members of religious orders are not denied access to title IV funding or benefits under the title IV programs, including the Federal Pell Grant Program, the Federal Perkins Loan Program, the Federal Work-Study Program (FWSP), the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) Program, the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, and the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program.
• Under certain circumstances, allow borrowers working as full-time volunteers to defer repayment of Federal Perkins Loans, National Defense Student Loans (NDSLs), and FFELs if those borrowers also engage in giving religious instruction, conducting worship services, engaging in religious proselytizing, or engaging in fundraising to support religious activities as part of their assigned volunteer duties.
• Provide an interpretation of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) regulations that permit borrowers who work for employers that engage in religious instruction, worship services, or proselytizing to qualify for PSLF so long as they meet the applicable standard for full-time employment when those religious activities are excluded from their work hours.
• Eliminate arbitrary limitations on the ability of private secondary and postsecondary faith-based educational institutions to participate in the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP).
In addition, during its review, the Department discovered language that is inconsistent with the statute in both the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership Program (LEAP) and FWSP regulations. The provisions in both programs relate to allowable employment-related activities for program participants. In these cases, the Department proposes to include the statutory language in the regulations.
These proposed regulations would also make changes to the TEACH Grant Program requirements. In exchange for receiving a TEACH Grant, a grant
To restore religious liberty to faith-based institutions and religious students, we propose new regulations that would—
• Restore the ability of members of religious orders, who also are pursuing courses of study at institutions of higher education, to participate in the title IV, HEA programs by eliminating regulatory provisions that treat members of religious orders as having no financial need in certain circumstances.
• Allow certain borrowers, who serve as full-time volunteers in tax-exempt organizations and give religious instruction, conduct worship service, proselytize, or fundraise to support religious activities as part of their official duties, to defer repayment of Federal Perkins Loans, NDSLs, and FFELs.
• Provide an interpretation of the PSLF regulations, which permit borrowers who work for employers that engage in religious instruction, worship services, or proselytizing to qualify for PSLF so long as they meet the applicable standard for full-time employment when those religious activities are excluded from their work hours.
• Clarify requirements for private secondary and postsecondary faith-based institutions' participation in the GEAR UP program.
• Conform language in the LEAP and FWSP regulations regarding allowable program activities to statutory language.
For the TEACH Grant Program, we propose new regulations that would—
• Clarify that grant recipients may satisfy the TEACH Grant service obligation by teaching for an educational service agency that serves low-income students.
• Clarify the beginning date of the eight-year period for completing the TEACH Grant service obligation.
• Revise the definition of “highly qualified.”
• Update and expand the conditions under which a TEACH Grant recipient may satisfy the TEACH Grant service obligation by teaching in a high-need field listed in the Department's annual Teacher Shortage Area Nationwide Listing (Nationwide List).
• Clarify the service obligation requirements for TEACH Grant recipients who withdraw from the institution where they received a TEACH Grant before completing the program for which they received the grant, then later re-enroll in the same program or in a different TEACH Grant eligible program at the same academic level.
• Expand the information that is provided to TEACH Grant recipients during initial, subsequent, and exit counseling, and add a new conversion counseling requirement for grant recipients whose TEACH Grants are converted to Direct Unsubsidized Loans.
• Add new conditions under which a TEACH Grant recipient may receive a temporary suspension of the eight-year period for completing the service obligation.
• Remove the current regulatory requirement for TEACH Grant recipients to certify, within 120 days of completing the program for which they received TEACH Grants, that they have begun qualifying teaching service, or that they have not yet begun teaching, but they intend to satisfy the service obligation.
• Simplify the regulations specifying the conditions under which TEACH Grants are converted to Direct Unsubsidized Loans so that for all grant recipients, loan conversion will occur only if the recipient asks the Secretary to convert his or her TEACH Grants to loans, or if the recipient fails to begin or maintain qualifying teaching service within a timeframe that would allow the recipient to satisfy the service obligation within the eight-year service obligation period.
• Specify that the Secretary will send grant recipients, at least annually, a notice containing detailed information about the TEACH Grant service obligation requirements, a summary of the grant recipient's progress toward satisfying the service obligation, and an explanation of the process by which a grant recipient whose TEACH Grants are converted to Direct Unsubsidized Loans may request reconsideration of the conversion if he or she believes that the grants were converted in error.
• Describe the actions that the Secretary will take if a grant recipient's request for reconsideration of the conversion of the grant to a loan is approved or denied.
• Specify that the Secretary will notify a grant recipient in advance of the date by which he or she will be subject to loan conversion for failure to begin or maintain qualifying teaching service within a timeframe that would allow the recipient to complete the service obligation within the eight-year service obligation period, and inform the recipient of the final date by which he or she must provide documentation of teaching service to avoid having his or her grants converted to loans.
• Incorporate statutory changes and update, simplify, and clarify various areas of the TEACH Grant Program regulations.
Please refer to the
As discussed in the
To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to identify clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations that each of your comments addresses, and provide relevant information and data whenever possible, even when there is no specific solicitation of data and other supporting materials in the request for comment. We also urge you to arrange your comments in the same order as the proposed regulations. Please do not submit comments that are outside the scope of the specific proposals in this NPRM, as we are not required to respond to such comments.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed regulations. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the Department's programs and activities.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about the proposed regulations by accessing
The Secretary proposes to amend parts 674, 675, 676, 682, 685, 686, 690, 692, and 694 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The regulations in 34 CFR part 674 pertain to the Federal Perkins Loan Program. The regulations in 34 CFR part 675 pertain to FWSP. The regulations in 34 CFR part 676 pertain to the FSEOG. The regulations in 34 CFR part 682 pertain to FFEL. The regulations in 34 CFR part 685 pertain to Direct Loans. The regulations in 34 CFR part 686 pertain to the TEACH Grant Program. The regulations in 34 CFR part 690 pertain to the Federal Pell Grant Program. The regulations in 34 CFR part 692 pertain to LEAP. The regulations in 34 CFR part 694 pertain to GEAR UP.
We are proposing these amendments to: (1) Ensure that students and faith-based organizations are not prevented from participating in title IV programs because of their religious views; (2) codify the statutory language about allowable forms of employment for both the FWSP and the LEAP program; (3) ensure that GEAR UP providers that serve students attending private schools are employed independently of the private school; (4) eliminate a redundant provision that prohibits the commingling of Federal and non-Federal funds used to provide services to GEAR UP students attending private institutions; and (5) eliminate the prohibition against pervasively sectarian institutions of higher education from serving as fiscal agents for GEAR UP grantees.
Throughout this NPRM, when the Department refers to a “generally available benefit program,” the Department is referring to programs that meet the Supreme Court's characterization of “neutral and generally available benefit programs” in
In 2007, Congress established the TEACH Grant Program to help increase the number of teachers in high-need fields in low-income schools. The TEACH Grant Program provides up to $4,000 per year to undergraduate and graduate students enrolling in coursework to become a teacher. In exchange for receiving a TEACH Grant, a recipient must agree to teach in a high-need field such as reading, mathematics, or science, at a low-income school, for at least four years in an eight-year period and annually certify that he or she intends to meet this requirement. If a recipient does not meet the grant requirements or the annual certification requirements, the grant converts to a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan with interest charged from the date of each TEACH Grant disbursement.
A 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that around 36,000 out of more than 112,000 TEACH Grant recipients had not fulfilled TEACH Grant requirements and had their grants converted to loans (GAO, 2015).
A 2018 study conducted for the Department by the American Institutes for Research (U.S. Department of Education, 2018)
To address the concerns raised by these studies, we are proposing amendments that we believe will reduce the number of TEACH Grants that are converted to Direct Unsubsidized Loans by simplifying the requirements for TEACH Grant recipients to show that they are meeting the service obligation requirements; ensure that TEACH Grant recipients are better informed of program requirements by expanding and strengthening counseling and notifications; make it easier for TEACH
On July 31, 2018, we published a notice in the
Written comments submitted in response to the July 31, 2018
Section 492 of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. 1098a, requires the Secretary to obtain public involvement in the development of proposed regulations affecting programs authorized by title IV of the HEA. After obtaining extensive input and recommendations from the public, including individuals and representatives of groups involved in the title IV, HEA programs, the Secretary in most cases must subject the proposed regulations to a negotiated rulemaking process. If negotiators reach consensus on the proposed regulations, the Department agrees to publish without alteration a defined group of regulations on which the negotiators reached consensus unless the Secretary reopens the process or provides a written explanation to the participants stating why the Secretary has decided to depart from the agreement reached during negotiations. Further information on the negotiated rulemaking process can be found at:
On October 15, 2018, the Department published a notice in the
The Department sought negotiators to represent the following groups for the Accreditation and Innovation Committee: Students; legal assistance organizations that represent students; financial aid administrators at postsecondary institutions; national accreditation agencies; regional accreditation agencies; programmatic accreditation agencies; institutions of higher education primarily offering distance education; institutions of higher education eligible to receive Federal assistance under title III, parts A, B and F, and title V of the HEA, which include Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, and other institutions with a substantial enrollment of needy students as defined in title III of the HEA; two-year public institutions of higher education; four-year public institutions of higher education; faith-based institutions of higher education; private, nonprofit institutions of higher education; private, proprietary institutions of higher education; employers; and veterans.
The Department sought individuals to represent the following groups for the Faith-Based Entities Subcommittee: Students; faith-based entities eligible for title IV, HEA programs; officers of institution-based GEAR UP grantees; institutions of higher education with knowledge of faith-based entities' participation in the title IV, HEA programs; institutions of higher education with knowledge of faith-based entities' participation in the title IV, HEA programs that also are eligible to receive Federal financial assistance under title III, parts A, B, and F, and title V of the HEA, which include HBCUs, HSIs, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, Predominantly Black Institutions, and other institutions with a substantial enrollment of needy students as defined in title III of the HEA; accrediting agencies; associations or organizations that focus on issues related to faith-based entities or the participation of faith-based entities in Federal programs; and financial aid administrators at postsecondary institutions.
The Department sought individuals with expertise in teacher education programs, student financial aid, and high-need teacher education programs to serve as members of the TEACH Grant Subcommittee: Students who are or have been TEACH Grant recipients; legal assistance organizations that represent students; financial aid administrators at postsecondary institutions; State primary and secondary education executive officers; institutions of higher education that award or have awarded TEACH grants and that are eligible to receive Federal assistance under title III, parts A, B, and F, and title V of the HEA, which include HBCUs, HSIs, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, Predominantly Black Institutions, and other institutions with a substantial enrollment of needy students as defined in title III of the HEA; two-year institutions of higher education that award or have awarded TEACH grants; four-year institutions of higher education that award or have awarded TEACH grants; organizations or associations that represent the interests of students who participate in title IV programs; and organizations or associations that represent financial aid administrators.
The Accreditation and Innovation negotiating committee included the following members:
Susan Hurst, Ouachita Baptist University, and Karen McCarthy (alternate), National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, representing financial aid administrators at postsecondary institutions.
Robyn Smith, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, and Lea Wroblewski (alternate), Legal Aid of Nebraska, representing legal assistance organizations that represent students.
Ernest McNealey, Allen University, and Erin Hill Hart (alternate), North Carolina A & T State University, representing institutions of higher education that award or have awarded TEACH grants and that are eligible to receive Federal assistance under title III, parts A, B, and F, and title V of the HEA, which include HBCUs, HSIs, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, Predominantly Black Institutions, and other institutions with a substantial enrollment of needy students as defined in title III of the HEA.
David Dannenberg, University of Alaska, Anchorage, and Tina Falkner (alternate), University of Minnesota, representing four-year public institutions of higher education.
Terry Hartle, American Council on Education, and Ashley Ann Reich (alternate), Liberty University, representing private, nonprofit institutions of higher education.
Jillian Klein, Strategic Education, Inc., and Fabian Fernandez (alternate), Schiller International University, representing private, proprietary institutions of higher education.
William Pena, Southern New Hampshire University, and M. Kimberly Rupert (alternate), Spring Arbor University, representing institutions of higher education primarily offering distance education.
Christina Amato, Sinclair College, and Daniel Phelan (alternate), Jackson College, representing two-year public institutions of higher education.
Barbara Gellman-Danley, Higher Learning Commission, and Elizabeth Sibolski (alternate), Middle States Commission on Higher Education, representing regional accreditation agencies.
Laura King, Council on Education for Public Health, and Janice Knebl (alternate), American Osteopathic Association Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation, representing programmatic accreditation agencies.
Michale S. McComis, Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges, and India Y. Tips (alternate), Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools, representing national accreditation agencies.
Steven M. Sandberg, Brigham Young University, and David Altshuler (alternate), San Francisco Theological Seminary, representing faith-based institutions of higher education.
Joseph Verardo, National Association of Graduate-Professional Students, and John Castellaw (alternate), University of Arizona, representing students.
Edgar McCulloch, IBM Corporation, and Shaun T. Kelleher (alternate), BAM Technologies, representing employers.
Daniel Elkins, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the U.S., and Elizabeth Bejar (alternate), Florida International University, representing veterans.
Annmarie Weisman, U.S. Department of Education, representing the Department.
The Faith-Based Entities Subcommittee included the following members:
Gregory Bruner, Olivet Nazarene University, representing financial aid administrators at postsecondary institutions.
Andrew Bramson, College Crusade of Rhode Island, representing officers of institution-based GEAR UP grantees.
Emmanual Guillory, United Negro College Fund, Inc., representing institutions of higher education eligible to receive Federal assistance under title III, parts A, B, F, and title V of the HEA, which include HBCUs, HSIs, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, and other institutions with a substantial enrollment of needy students as defined in title III of the HEA.
Stephen Eck, Oklahoma Christian University, representing faith-based entities eligible for title IV, HEA programs.
Thomas Dunne, Fordham University, representing institutions of higher education with knowledge of faith-based entities' participation in the title IV, HEA programs.
William Hathaway, Regent University, representing accrediting agencies.
Richard Katskee, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Kimberlee Wood Colby, Center for Law and Religious Freedom, representing associations or organizations that focus on issues related to faith-based entities or the participation of faith-based entities in Federal programs.
Haven Herrin, Soulforce, representing students.
Lynn Mahaffie, U.S. Department of Education.
The TEACH Grants Subcommittee included the following members:
Debbi Braswell, Belhaven University, and Stephen Payne, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, representing financial aid administrators at postsecondary institutions.
Kyra Taylor, Legal Services Center at Harvard Law School, representing legal assistance organizations that represent students.
Willis W. Walter, Virginia State University, representing institutions of higher education that award or have awarded TEACH Grants and that are eligible to receive Federal assistance under title III, parts A, B, and F, and title V of the HEA, which includes HBCUs, HSIs, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, and other institutions with a substantial enrollment of needy students as defined in title III of the HEA.
Alyssa Dobson, Slippery Rock University, and David T. Cantaffa, State University of New York, representing four-year institutions of higher education that award or have awarded TEACH Grants.
Deborah Koolbeck, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, representing organizations or associations that represent the interests of students who participate in the title IV programs.
Sophia McArdle, U.S. Department of Education.
The negotiated rulemaking committee met to develop proposed regulations on January 14-16, 2019; February 19-22, 2019; March 25-28, 2019; and April 1-3, 2019.
At the first meeting of the Committee, the Department received a petition for membership from David Tandberg, Vice President of Policy Research and Strategic Initiatives at the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, to represent State higher education executive officers. The negotiated rulemaking committee voted to include Dr. Tandberg on the full committee.
During its first meeting, the negotiating committee also reached agreement on its protocols and proposed agenda. The protocols provided, among other things, that the committee would operate by consensus. Consensus means that there must be no dissent by any member for the committee to have reached agreement. Under the protocols, the Department would use the consensus-based language in its proposed regulations for each bucket, as described in more detail below, on which final consensus was achieved. Furthermore, the Department would not substantively alter the consensus-based language of its proposed regulations unless the Department reopened the negotiated rulemaking process or provided a written explanation to the committee members regarding why it decided to depart from that language.
During the first meeting, the negotiating committee agreed to negotiate an agenda of issues related to accreditation and student financial aid. Under the protocols, the issues were placed into three “buckets” upon which a final consensus would have to include consensus on all issues within that bucket. The first bucket included issues related to accreditation in 34 CFR parts 600, 602, 603, and 668, as well as the Robert C. Byrd Scholarship Program in 34 CFR part 654. The second bucket included issues related to the TEACH Grant Program in 34 CFR part 686 and the treatment of faith-based entities in student aid and grant programs in 34 CFR parts 674, 675, 676, 682, 685, 690, 692, and 694. The third bucket included issues related to distance learning and educational innovation in 34 CFR parts 600 and 668. The committee reached consensus on each of the three buckets.
The Department plans to issue separate NPRMs and final regulations for each bucket of issues. This NPRM addresses issues related to the treatment of faith-based entities and TEACH
During committee meetings, the committee reviewed and discussed the Department's drafts of regulatory language and the committee members' alternative language and suggestions. At the final meeting on April 3, 2019, the committee reached consensus on regulatory language. For this reason, and according to the committee's protocols, committee members and the organizations that they represent have agreed to refrain from commenting negatively on the consensus-based regulatory language. For more information on the negotiated rulemaking sessions, please visit:
With respect to issues discussed by the Faith-Based Subcommittee, the proposed regulations would—
• Amend §§ 674.9, 675.9, 676.9, 682.301, 685.200, and 690.75 by removing language that presumes that a member of a religious order has no financial need when determining eligibility for the Pell Grant Program, the Federal Perkins Loan Program, the FWSP, the FSEOG Program, the FFEL Program, and the Direct Loan Program, respectively.
• Delete language in §§ 674.35, 674.36, and 682.210 that would prohibit borrowers with Federal Perkins Loans made before July 1, 1993, NDSLs made on or after October 1, 1980, but before July 1, 1993, or FFELs made before July 1, 1993, from obtaining deferment of their loans during periods of otherwise eligible full-time volunteer work that includes providing religious instruction, conducting religious services, proselytizing, or engaging in fundraising to support religious activities.
• Amend §§ 675.20 and 692.30 to conform regulatory provisions in the FWSP and LEAP Program to statutory provisions that prohibit work study employment from involving the construction, operation, or maintenance of so much of any facility as is used or is to be used for sectarian instruction or as a place for religious worship.
• Amend § 685.219 by deleting provisions that would exclude borrowers who are otherwise eligible for PSLF from receiving forgiveness, because they are working for organizations engaged in activities relating to religious instruction, worship services, or proselytizing.
• Modify § 694.6(b) by replacing language related to the provision of GEAR UP services and providers at private religious schools with language requiring that providers of GEAR UP services be employed or contracted independently of a private school and its affiliated organizations. The Department proposes to delete the word “religious” before the word “organization” to clarify that employment must be independent of organizations affiliated with the school, regardless of whether those organizations are religious in nature.
• Delete § 694.6(c), which prohibits the commingling of Federal and non-Federal funds used to provide GEAR UP services to students attending private schools.
• Amend § 694.10 to delete language indicating that the fiscal agent of a GEAR UP grant may not be pervasively sectarian.
For the TEACH Grant Program, the proposed regulations would—
• Where needed throughout the regulations, add references to educational service agencies, replace “agreement to serve” with “agreement to serve or repay,” and revise the references to Direct Unsubsidized Loans for consistency with the terminology used in the Direct Loan Program regulations.
• Amend § 686.1 by expanding the information included in the description of the scope and purpose of the TEACH Grant Program.
• Revise § 686.2 by adding a cross-reference to the definition of “Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA)” in 34 CFR part 668, adding definitions of “educational service agency” and “Teacher Shortage Area Nationwide Listing (Nationwide List),” and revising the definitions of “Agreement to serve,” “highly qualified,” “school serving low-income students (low-income school),” and “TEACH Grant-eligible program.”
• Modify §§ 686.10 and 686.11 by replacing references to submitting a TEACH Grant application with references to submitting the FAFSA and making additional conforming changes.
• Amend § 686.12 by (1) changing “agreement to serve” to “agreement to serve or repay”; (2) expanding the description of the contents of the agreement to serve or repay; (3) clarifying the requirements for completion of more than one service obligation, and adding language to explain the service obligation requirements for grant recipients who withdraw from an institution prior to completing the program for which TEACH Grants were received and later re-enroll; and (4) updating the conditions under which a TEACH Grant recipient may satisfy the service obligation by teaching in a high-need field listed in the Department's Nationwide List.
• Make minor changes to § 686.21 to be more consistent with the corresponding statutory language.
• Amend § 686.32 by expanding and revising the information that TEACH Grant recipients receive during initial, subsequent, and exit counseling, and by adding a new conversion counseling requirement for grant recipients whose TEACH Grants are converted to Direct Unsubsidized Loans.
• Modify § 686.40 by (1) removing the requirement for grant recipients to confirm their status within 120 days of ceasing enrollment in a program for which they received a TEACH Grant; (2) eliminating the current rule stating that a grant recipient may not satisfy the service obligation by teaching in a geographic region of a State or in a specific grade level not associated with a high-need field that has been designated as a teacher shortage area in the Department's Nationwide List; and (3) adding a new circumstance under which teaching for less than a complete academic year may be counted as a full year of qualifying teaching service.
• Revise § 686.41 by adding new conditions under which a grant recipient may receive a temporary suspension of the period for completing the service obligation.
• Amend § 686.42 by updating the requirements and procedures for receiving a discharge of the TEACH Grant service obligation based on a total and permanent disability (TPD).
• Revise § 686.43 by (1) simplifying the rules for conversion of TEACH Grants to Direct Unsubsidized Loans to provide that for all grant recipients, conversion will occur only if the grant recipient requests conversion, or if the recipient fails to begin or maintain qualifying teaching service within a timeframe that would allow the recipient to complete the service obligation within the eight-year service obligation period; (2) adding language describing a notice that the Secretary will send to grant recipients at least annually to remind them of the service obligation requirements; (3) specifying that the Secretary will notify grant recipients in advance of the final date by which they must submit documentation of qualifying teaching service to avoid loan conversion; and (4) describing the information that the Secretary will provide to a grant
We discuss substantive issues under the sections of the proposed regulations to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address proposed regulatory provisions that are technical or otherwise minor in effect.
• Adding language stating that a student can receive a TEACH Grant by agreeing to serve as a full-time teacher in a high-need field for an educational service agency serving low-income students;
• Replacing the current language stating that a student must agree to teach for at least four academic years within eight years of completing the program of study for which he or she received the grant with language stating that the student must agree to complete the required years of teaching within eight years of ceasing enrollment at the institution where the student received the TEACH grant or, in the case of a student who receives a TEACH Grant at one institution and subsequently transfers to another institution and enrolls in another TEACH Grant-eligible program, within eight years of ceasing enrollment at the other institution;
• Adding language stating that the eight-year period for completing the required four years of teaching does not include periods of suspension in accordance with § 686.41;
• Adding language to clarify that interest is charged from the date of each TEACH Grant disbursement if the TEACH Grant recipient does not satisfy the service obligation requirements and his or her TEACH Grants are converted into a Direct Unsubsidized Loan that must be repaid with interest; and
• Adding language stating the conditions under which a TEACH Grant that has been converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan can be reconverted to a grant.
For consistency with proposed changes discussed in more detail later in this preamble, we propose to amend § 686.1 to state that the eight-year period for completing the service obligation begins when a student ceases enrollment at the institution where he or she received a TEACH Grant, rather than when the student completes the program of study for which the student received the grant. Further, because the current TEACH Grant regulations do not address the starting date of the eight-year service obligation period for students who receive a TEACH Grant at one institution and later transfer to a different institution, we propose to clarify in § 686.1 that in such cases the eight-year period would begin when the student ceases enrollment at the transfer institution. This is consistent with other proposed changes, discussed later in this preamble, that provide that a grant recipient will have a single service obligation associated with all TEACH Grants received while the recipient is at the same academic level.
The TEACH Grant subcommittee recommended that we expand § 686.1 to clarify that the eight-year period for completing the service obligation does not include periods of suspension granted under § 686.41, that interest is charged on a converted TEACH Grant from the date of each TEACH Grant disbursement, and that a TEACH Grant that has been converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan can be reconverted to a grant only if the Secretary determines that the grant was improperly converted to a loan. Subcommittee members believed that it was particularly important for TEACH Grant recipients to understand these specific provisions of the TEACH Grant Program and urged the Department to include them in § 686.1 for the benefit of grant recipients who may only read the “scope and purpose” section of the regulations.
We agreed with the recommendations to expand the content of § 686.1, but instead of adding language stating that a TEACH Grant that has been converted to a loan can be reconverted to a grant only if the Secretary determines that the grant was improperly converted to a loan, we propose to say that a loan can be reconverted to a grant only in accordance with § 686.43. The reason for proposing this alternative language is that under certain circumstances as described in proposed § 686.43, a TEACH Grant that was converted to a loan can be reconverted to a grant even though the conversion to a loan was not improper.
(1) Bilingual education and English language acquisition;
(2) Foreign language;
(3) Mathematics;
(4) Reading specialist;
(5) Science;
(6) Special education; and
(7) Another field documented as high-need by the Federal Government, a State government or an LEA, and approved by the Secretary and listed in the Department's annual Teacher Shortage Area Nationwide Listing (Nationwide List) in accordance with 34 CFR 682.210(q).
The cross-reference to 34 CFR 682.210(q) in current paragraph (7) is no longer needed because it will be included in a proposed stand-alone definition of “Teacher Shortage Area Nationwide Listing (Nationwide List),” as discussed below.
Sections 428J(g)(3) and 460(g)(3) of the HEA describe how private school teachers who are exempt from State certification requirements may be considered highly qualified teachers for purposes of meeting the eligibility requirements for teacher loan forgiveness in the FFEL and Direct Loan programs.
The definition of “highly qualified” in the ESEA does not address private school teachers. However, teaching in qualified non-profit private schools can be qualifying service for a TEACH Grant recipient. To clarify the requirements for private school teachers and to be consistent with the requirements that apply to teachers seeking loan forgiveness in the Direct Loan and FFEL Programs, we propose to expand the definition of “highly qualified” to include the language from sections 428J(g)(3) and 460(g)(3) of the HEA that describes how private school teachers who are exempt from State certification requirements can meet the highly qualified teacher standards for teacher loan forgiveness purposes.
(1) A public or other nonprofit private elementary school or secondary school, which has been determined by the Secretary (pursuant to regulations of the Secretary and after consultation with the State educational agency of the State in which the school is located) to be a school in which the number of children meeting a measure of poverty under section 1113(a)(5) of the ESEA, exceeds 30 percent of the total number of children enrolled in such school, and is in the school district of an LEA which is eligible in such year for assistance pursuant to part A of title I of the ESEA; or
(2) A public, or nonprofit private, elementary school or secondary school or location operated by an educational service agency that has been determined by the Secretary (pursuant to regulations of the Secretary and after consultation with the State educational agency of the State in which the educational service agency operates) to be a school or location at which the number of children taught who meet a measure of poverty under section 1113(a)(5) of the ESEA, exceeds 30 percent of the total number of children taught at such school or location.
(1) Is in the school district of an LEA that is eligible for assistance pursuant to title I of the ESEA;
(2) Has been determined by the Secretary to be a school in which more than 30 percent of the school's total enrollment is made up of children who qualify for services provided under title I of the ESEA; and
(3) Is listed in the Department's Annual Directory of Designated Low-Income Schools for Teacher Cancellation Benefits.
The current definition of “low-income school” further provides that the Secretary considers all elementary and secondary schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) in the Department of the Interior or operated on Indian reservations by Indian Tribal groups under contract or grant with the BIE to qualify as schools serving low-income students.
Section 686.10(b) requires the student to submit the application by sending the completed application to the Secretary, or by providing the application, signed by all appropriate family members, to the institution that the student attends or plans to attend, so that the institution can transmit the application information to the Secretary electronically.
Section 686.10(c) requires the student to provide the address of his or her residence.
Finally, § 686.10(d) provides that for each award year, the Secretary, through publication in the
We further propose to redesignate § 686.10(a)(2) and (3) as § 686.10(b) and (c), respectively, amend the redesignated paragraphs, and remove § 686.10(b), (c), and (d).
In redesignated § 686.10(b), we propose to replace “agreement to serve and promise to pay” with “agreement to serve or repay,” and to specify that the TEACH Grant applicant must complete and sign the agreement to serve or repay in accordance with § 686.12.
In redesignated § 686.10(c), we propose to remove the requirement for the applicant to provide any assurances requested by the Secretary, and to specify that in addition to being required to provide any additional information requested by the Secretary, the applicant must also provide any additional information requested by the institution.
We also propose to remove the requirement for the TEACH Grant applicant to provide assurances because any required assurances are included in the agreement to serve or repay. We further propose to add a provision stating that a TEACH Grant applicant must provide any additional information requested by the institution. TEACH Grant subcommittee members recommended adding this provision because there are institutions that require potential TEACH Grant recipients to submit information showing that they meet the program eligibility requirements of the TEACH Grant-eligible program that are specific to that institution.
Section 686.11(b) sets forth the TEACH Grant student eligibility requirements for current or former teachers and retirees. A current or former teacher or retiree must meet the student eligibility requirements for Federal student financial aid in 34 CFR part 668, subpart C, have submitted a completed application along with a signed service agreement, and have
We propose to revise the introductory text in § 686.11(b) to refer to the application requirements in proposed § 686.10, consistent with the proposed change to § 686.11(a)(1)(i). We also propose to remove § 686.11(b)(1) and redesignate § 686.11(b)(2) and (3) as § 686.11(b)(1) and (2), respectively.
(1) Serve as a full-time teacher for a total of not less than four academic years within eight years after completing the course of study for which the applicant received a TEACH Grant;
(2) Teach in a school described in section 465(a)(2)(A) of the HEA;
(3) Teach in any of the fields of mathematics, science, foreign language, bilingual education, special education, reading specialist, or another field documented as high-need by the Federal Government, State government, or LEA, and approved by the Secretary;
(4) Submit evidence of qualifying employment in the form of a certification by the chief administrative officer of the school upon completion of each year of service; and
(5) Comply with the requirements for being a highly qualified teacher as defined in section 9101 of the ESEA.
Section 420N(b)(2) of the HEA provides that if the applicant is determined to have failed or refused to carry out the service obligation, the sum of the amounts of any TEACH Grants received by the applicant will be treated as a loan and collected from the applicant in accordance with section 420N(c) of the HEA.
Section 420N(b)(3) of the HEA states that the agreement to serve must contain or be accompanied by a plain-language disclosure form developed by the Secretary that clearly describes the nature of the TEACH Grant award, the service obligation, and the loan repayment requirements that are the consequences of failure to complete the service obligation.
Section 420N(d)(1) of the HEA provides that if a recipient of an initial TEACH Grant has acquired an academic degree or expertise in a field that was, at the time of the recipient's application for that grant, designated as high-need by the Federal Government, State government, or LEA, and approved by the Secretary, but it is no longer designated as high-need, the grant recipient may fulfill the TEACH Grant service obligation by teaching in that field.
Section 686.12(b) describes the contents of the agreement to serve. Section 686.12(b) introductory text provides that for each TEACH Grant-eligible program for which a student received TEACH Grant funds, the grant recipient must fulfill a service obligation by performing creditable teaching service.
Section 686.12(b)(1) states that a grant recipient must perform the creditable teaching service by serving as a full-time teacher for a total of not less than four elementary or secondary academic years within eight calendar years after completing the program or otherwise ceasing enrollment in the program for which the recipient received the TEACH Grant—
(1) In a low-income school;
(2) As a highly qualified teacher; and
(3) In a high-need field in the majority of classes taught during each elementary and secondary year.
Under § 686.12(b)(2), the agreement to serve requires the grant recipient to submit, upon completion of each year of service, documentation of the service in the form of a certification by a chief administrative officer of the school.
Under § 686.12(b)(3), the agreement to serve requires the grant recipient to comply with the terms, conditions, and other requirements consistent with §§ 686.40—686.43 that the Secretary determines to be necessary.
Section 686.12(c) addresses the completion of more than one service obligation. Section 686.12(c)(1) states that a grant recipient must complete a service obligation for each program of study for which he or she received TEACH Grants; specifies that each service obligation begins following the completion or other cessation of enrollment by the student in the TEACH Grant-eligible program for which the student received TEACH Grant funds; and clarifies that creditable teaching service, a suspension approved under § 686.41(a)(2), or a military discharge granted under § 686.42(c)(2) may apply to more than one service obligation.
Section 686.12(c)(2) provides that a grant recipient may request a suspension, in accordance with § 686.41, of the eight-year time period described in § 686.12(b)(1).
Section 686.12(d) describes the requirements for majoring and serving in a high-need field. The current regulations state that a grant recipient who completes a TEACH Grant-eligible program in a field that is listed in the Nationwide List cannot satisfy his or her service obligation to teach in that high-need field unless the high-need field in which he or she has prepared to teach is listed in the Nationwide List for the State in which the grant recipient begins teaching at the time the recipient begins teaching in that field.
Section 686.12(e) describes the requirement that the recipient repay the amount of TEACH Grants received plus interest if the recipient fails to complete the service obligation. Under § 686.12(e), if a grant recipient fails or refuses to carry out the required service obligation described in § 686.12(b), the TEACH Grants received by the recipient must be repaid and will be treated as a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan, with interest accruing from the date of each
The proposed regulations would redesignate the introductory text of § 686.12(b) as § 686.12(b)(1), redesignate § 686.12(b)(1) as (b)(1)(i), and redesignate § 686.12(b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) as § 686.12(b)(1)(ii), (iii), and (iv), respectively.
We propose to amend redesignated § 686.12(b)(1)(i) by changing “eight calendar years” to “eight years,” and by further revising the current language to provide that a grant recipient must complete the four-year service obligation within eight years after the date the recipient ceased to be enrolled at the institution where he or she received a TEACH Grant or, in the case of a student who receives a TEACH Grant at one institution and later transfers to another institution and enrolls in another TEACH Grant-eligible program, within eight years of ceasing enrollment at the other institution. In redesignated §§ 686.32(b)(1)(ii) and (iii), we propose to add cross-references to the definitions of “low-income school” and “highly qualified” teacher in § 686.2(d).
We propose to add new paragraphs § 686.12(b)(3) and (4), and redesignate current paragraph § 686.12(b)(3) as paragraph § 686.12(b)(5).
Under proposed new § 686.12(b)(3), the agreement to serve or repay would explain that the eight-year period for completing the service obligation does not include periods of suspension in accordance with § 686.41.
Under proposed new §§ 686.12(b)(4)(i) through (iii), the agreement to serve or repay would: (1) Explain the conditions under which a TEACH Grant may be converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan, as described in § 686.43; (2) explain that if a TEACH Grant is converted to a loan, the grant recipient must repay the loan in full, with interest charged from the date of each TEACH Grant disbursement; and (3) explain that to avoid further accrual of interest, a grant recipient who for any reason no longer intends to satisfy the service obligation may request that the Secretary convert his or her TEACH Grant to a loan that the grant recipient can begin repaying immediately.
We propose to change the heading for § 686.12(c) from “Completion of more than one service obligation” to “Completion of the service obligation.” In addition, we propose to revise paragraph (c)(1) and add new paragraphs (c)(2) and (3). Current paragraph (c)(2) would be redesignated as paragraph (c)(4).
Proposed revised § 686.12(c)(1) would provide that a TEACH Grant recipient must complete one service obligation for all TEACH Grants received for undergraduate study, and one service obligation for all TEACH Grants received for graduate study, and would further specify that the eight-year period for completing the service obligation begins when the grant recipient ceases to be enrolled at the institution where he or she received a TEACH Grant or, in the case of a student who receives a TEACH Grant at one institution and later transfers to another institution and enrolls in another TEACH Grant-eligible program, when the recipient ceases enrollment at the other institution. Proposed revised § 686.12(c)(1) would continue to specify that creditable teaching service, an approved suspension, or a military discharge may apply to more than one service obligation.
Proposed new § 686.12(c)(2) would address the service obligation requirements for TEACH Grant recipients who withdraw from an institution before completing the program of study for which they received TEACH Grants, but later re-enroll at the same institution or at a different institution in the same or a different TEACH Grant-eligible program at the same academic level. Specifically, proposed new § 686.12(c)(2)(i) would provide that if a grant recipient withdraws from an institution before completing a baccalaureate or post-baccalaureate program, but later re-enrolls at the same or a different institution in either the same program or in a different baccalaureate or post-baccalaureate program and receives additional TEACH Grants, or the Secretary otherwise confirms that the recipient has re-enrolled in a TEACH Grant-eligible program, the Secretary would adjust the starting date of the eight-year service obligation period to begin when the recipient ceases enrollment at the institution where he or she has re-enrolled, except as provided in proposed new § 686.12(c)(3). Proposed new § 686.12(c)(2)(ii) would provide for the same treatment of a grant recipient who withdraws from and later re-enrolls in a TEACH Grant-eligible master's degree program. Proposed § 686.12(c)(2)(i) and (ii) would apply only if the grant recipient re-enrolls before we convert the recipient's TEACH Grants to Direct Unsubsidized Loans in accordance with proposed § 686.43(a)(1)(ii).
Proposed new § 686.12(c)(3) would address the treatment of grant recipients covered under proposed § 686.12(c)(2)(i) or (ii) who complete one or more years of creditable teaching service during the period between their withdrawal and subsequent re-enrollment. Specifically, the proposed regulations would provide that if a grant recipient completed one or more complete academic years of creditable teaching service during the period between withdrawal and re-enrollment, those years of teaching would count toward satisfaction of the grant recipient's service obligation, and the Secretary would not adjust the starting date of the eight-year period for completing the service obligation, unless the recipient requests an adjustment. Proposed new § 686.12(c)(3) would further provide that if a grant recipient continues to perform creditable teaching service after re-enrolling in a TEACH Grant-eligible program, qualifying teaching service performed while the recipient is concurrently enrolled in the TEACH Grant-eligible program may be applied toward satisfaction of the grant recipient's service obligation only if the grant recipient does not request and receive a temporary suspension of the service obligation period under § 686.41(a)(1)(i).
We propose to change the heading of § 686.12(d) from “Majoring and serving in a high-need field” to “Teaching in a high-need field listed in the Nationwide List”. We propose to revise retitled § 686.12(d) to provide that for teaching service prior to July 1, 2010, teaching in a high-need field listed in the Nationwide List counts toward satisfaction of the service obligation as long as the high-need field in which the recipient prepared to teach is listed in the Nationwide List for the State in which the recipient teaches at the time the recipient begins teaching in that field, even if that field subsequently loses its high-need designation. For teaching service performed on or after July 1, 2010, the field must be listed in the Nationwide List at the time the grant recipient begins teaching in that field, even if the field later loses its high-need designation, or must have been listed at the time the grant recipient signed the agreement to serve or repay or received the TEACH Grant, even if that field is no longer designated as high-need when the recipient begins teaching in that field.
To reflect our current practice, we propose to specify in § 686.12(b)(1)(i) that the eight-year period for completing the service obligation begins on the date the grant recipient ceases enrollment at the institution or at the transfer institution where he or she received a TEACH Grant, rather than on the date the recipient completes or otherwise ceases to be enrolled in the program of study for which the recipient received a TEACH Grant. Existing practice is to start the eight-year service obligation on the date we receive enrollment information indicating that a grant recipient has ceased enrollment at the institution, because we generally do not collect the dates on which students cease enrollment in specific educational programs.
Proposed revised § 686.12(b)(1)(i) would also specify that the grant recipient must complete the service obligation within “eight years” rather than within “eight calendar years” as in current § 686.12(b)(1). During the TEACH Grant subcommittee meetings, a subcommittee member asked the Department if a grant recipient would be considered to have completed the service obligation within the eight-year service obligation period if the recipient's fourth academic year of qualifying teaching began less than eight calendar years from the starting date of the eight-year period, but did not end until more than eight calendar years had elapsed. The Department confirmed that, in this situation, the recipient would be considered to have satisfied the service obligation within the eight-year period. To make this clear in the regulations, the subcommittee member recommended that the Department replace “eight calendar years” with “eight years.” We agreed to propose this change.
We are proposing to add new paragraphs § 686.12(b)(3) and (4) to specify that the agreement to serve or repay will include certain information, as described earlier under “Proposed Regulations,” that subcommittee members believed was particularly important to ensure that students are better informed of the terms and conditions of the service obligation before they submit the agreement.
We propose to revise § 686.12(c) to cover certain circumstances that the current regulations do not address. Current § 686.12(c)(1) states that a grant recipient must complete a service obligation for each program of study for which he or she received TEACH Grants, but it does not address the service obligation requirements for grant recipients who start out in one TEACH Grant-eligible program, but then change to a different TEACH Grant-eligible program at the same academic level and at the same institution, or for grant recipients who receive a TEACH Grant at one institution and later transfer to another institution. We believe that the simplest approach, and the approach that is most beneficial to grant recipients, is to require a grant recipient to complete one service obligation for all TEACH Grants received for undergraduate study at the same institution or at more than one institution, and to complete one service obligation for all TEACH Grants received for graduate study at the same institution or at more than one institution. This means, for example, that a grant recipient who receives TEACH Grants for undergraduate TEACH Grant-eligible Program A, but before completing that program changes to undergraduate TEACH Grant-eligible Program B at either the same institution or at a different institution, would have just one four-year service obligation associated with all TEACH Grants received for undergraduate study. This approach is consistent with section 420N(b)(1)(A) of the HEA, which requires a TEACH Grant recipient to complete a four-year service obligation after completing the course of study for which the individual received TEACH Grants.
Because current § 686.12(c)(1) also does not address the service obligation requirements for grant recipients who withdraw from an institution before completing the program for which they received TEACH Grants, but later re-enroll in the same or a different TEACH Grant-eligible program, we are proposing to add new paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) to describe the requirements that would apply in this circumstance. The regulations in proposed new (c)(2) and (3) are consistent with the concept of having one service obligation for all TEACH Grants received for undergraduate study, and one service obligation for all TEACH Grants received for graduate study, as described in proposed § 686.12(c)(1).
The following example illustrates how proposed § 686.12(c)(2)(i) would apply:
A TEACH Grant recipient withdraws from an institution in December 2019 before completing TEACH Grant-eligible baccalaureate Program A. The eight-year period for completing the TEACH Grant service obligation begins on the student's withdrawal date. In September 2020, the grant recipient re-enrolls in Program A and receives another TEACH Grant. The grant recipient completes Program A and graduates in June 2021. We adjust the starting date of the eight-year period for completing the service obligation to begin in June 2021.
Proposed § 686.12(c)(2)(ii) would provide for the same treatment as described in the above example in the case of a grant recipient who withdraws prior to completing a TEACH Grant-eligible master's degree program and later re-enrolls in the same program or in a different TEACH Grant-eligible master's degree program.
Proposed § 686.12(c)(3)(i) and (ii) would specify that if a grant recipient completes one or more academic years of qualifying teaching service during the period between withdrawal and re-enrollment, the completed teaching counts toward satisfaction of the recipient's service obligation and the starting date of the period for completing the service obligation is not adjusted, unless the recipient requests an adjustment. The reason for not adjusting the service obligation period starting date in this circumstance is that if the starting date were adjusted to begin when the recipient ceases enrollment at the institution where he or she has re-enrolled, the period of completed teaching service for which the grant recipient is receiving credit would have been performed prior to the start of the service obligation period. Therefore, in this situation the starting date of the service obligation period will be the date the recipient withdrew prior to completing the program for which he or she received TEACH Grants. However, upon re-enrollment the grant recipient could request a temporary suspension of the period for completing the service obligation in accordance with proposed § 686.41(a)(1)(i). The non-Federal negotiators supported the provisions described in proposed new § 686.12(c)(2) and (3), but felt that a grant recipient who completed one or more years of qualifying teaching service during the period between withdrawal and re-enrollment should have the option of forfeiting credit for the completed teaching and instead have the starting date of the period for completing the service obligation adjusted to begin when the recipient ceases enrollment at the institution where he or she re-enrolled. This would provide the recipient with eight years to complete another four years of teaching. Some subcommittee members believed that for certain grant recipients it might be more beneficial to have a full eight
Under proposed § 686.12(c)(3)(iii), if a grant recipient continues to perform qualifying teaching service after re-enrolling in a TEACH Grant-eligible program, the recipient may receive credit for that teaching service toward satisfaction of the service obligation only if the recipient does not request and receive a temporary suspension of the period for completing the service obligation under proposed § 686.41(a)(1)(i) based on re-enrollment in a TEACH Grant-eligible program. The reason for this limitation is that teaching service may be applied toward satisfaction of a grant recipient's service obligation only if the teaching is performed during the service obligation period. Since we exclude periods of suspension from the service obligation period, any teaching performed during a period when we suspend the service obligation period cannot be counted toward satisfaction of the service obligation.
The following example illustrates how proposed § 686.12(c)(3) would apply:
A TEACH Grant recipient withdraws from an institution before completing TEACH Grant-eligible master's degree Program A in June 2020. The recipient's eight-year period for completing the service obligation begins in June 2020. In September 2020, the recipient begins teaching in a high-need field in a low-income school and completes a full year of qualifying teaching during the 2020-2021 school year. In September 2021, the grant recipient stops teaching, re-enrolls in Program A, and completes the program, graduating in June 2022. The recipient requests and receives a temporary suspension of the eight-year service obligation period while completing Program A. Unless the recipient requests otherwise, the starting date of the eight-year period for completing the service obligation continues to be June 2020. The recipient would receive credit for the one year of teaching completed during the 2020-2021 school year, and now has seven years left to complete the remaining three years of the four-year service obligation. However, the recipient would have the option of asking the Secretary to adjust the starting date of the eight-year service obligation period to begin in June 2022, when the recipient graduates after completing Program A. In that case, the recipient would receive no credit for the year of teaching completed during the 2020-2021 school year and would have eight years to complete four years of teaching, starting in June 2022.
Under proposed § 686.12(c)(3)(iii), if the grant recipient in the above example continued to perform qualifying teaching service after re-enrolling in Program A in September 2021 and completed an additional year of teaching during the 2021-2022 school year, the recipient could receive credit for the second year of teaching only if he or she did not request and receive a temporary suspension of the eight-year service obligation period after re-enrolling in Program A. In that case, after graduating in June 2022 the recipient would have six years left to complete the remaining two years of the four-year service obligation.
Finally, a non-Federal negotiator noted that the proposed changes in § 686.12(c) are not exclusively related to the completion of more than one service obligation. Accordingly, the Department agreed to change the heading of § 686.12(c) from “Completion of more than one service obligation” to “Completion of the service obligation.”
We propose to revise § 686.12(d) to reflect changes to section 420N(d)(1) of the HEA made by the HEOA. The changes made by the HEOA, as described earlier under “Proposed regulations,” are effective for teaching performed on or after July 1, 2010. We are also proposing to change the heading of § 686.12(d) from “Majoring and serving in a high-need field” to “Teaching in a high-need field listed in the Nationwide List” to describe the content of this section more accurately.
Section 686.32(a)(1) requires an institution to conduct initial counseling with each TEACH Grant recipient before making the first disbursement of the grant. Section 686.32(a)(2) states that the initial counseling must be in person, by audiovisual presentation, or by interactive electronic means, and that in each case the institution must ensure that an individual with expertise in the title IV, HEA programs is reasonably available shortly after the counseling to answer the student's questions. As an alternative method of counseling for students enrolled in a correspondence program or a study-abroad program, the current regulations allow for the student to be provided with written counseling materials before the grant is disbursed.
Under § 686.32(a)(3)(i) through (xi), initial counseling must—
• Explain the terms and conditions of the agreement to serve as described in § 686.12 (§ 686.32(a)(3)(i));
• Provide the grant recipient with information about how to identify low-income schools and high-need fields (§ 686.32(a)(3)(ii));
• Inform the grant recipient that, in order for teaching to count toward the service obligation, the high-need field in which he or she has prepared to teach must be one of the six high-need fields listed in § 686.2, or a high-need field listed in the Nationwide List at the time and for the State in which the grant recipient begins teaching in that field (§ 686.32(a)(3)(iii));
• Inform the grant recipient of the opportunity to request a suspension of the eight-year period for completing the agreement to serve and the conditions under which a suspension may be granted in accordance with § 686.41 (§ 686.32(a)(3)(iv));
• Explain to the grant recipient that conditions, such as conviction for a felony, could preclude the recipient from completing the service obligation (§ 686.32(a)(3)(v));
• Emphasize that if the grant recipient fails or refuses to complete the
• Explain the circumstances, as described in § 686.43, under which a TEACH Grant will convert to a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan (§ 686.32(a)(3)(vii));
• Emphasize that once a TEACH Grant converts to a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan, it cannot reconvert to a grant (§ 686.32(a)(3)(viii));
• Review for the grant recipient information on the availability of the Department's Student Loan Ombudsman's office (§ 686.32(a)(3)(ix));
• Describe the likely consequences of loan default, including adverse credit reports, garnishment of wages, Federal offset, and litigation (§ 686.32(a)(3)(x)); and
• Inform the grant recipient of sample monthly payment amounts based on a range of student loan indebtedness (§ 686.32(a)(3)(xi)).
In accordance with § 686.32(b)(1), if a student receives more than one TEACH Grant, the institution must ensure that the student receives additional counseling before the disbursement of each subsequent TEACH Grant. Section 686.32(b)(2) provides that subsequent counseling may be conducted by the same means as allowed for initial counseling in § 686.32(a)(2).
Under § 686.32(b)(3)(i) through (v), subsequent counseling must—
• Review the terms and conditions of the agreement to serve as described in § 686.12 (§ 686.32(b)(3)(i));
• Emphasize that if the grant recipient fails or refuses to complete the service obligation contained in the agreement to serve or any other condition of the agreement to serve, the TEACH Grant must be repaid as a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan, and the recipient will be obligated to repay the full amount of each TEACH Grant and accrued interest from each disbursement date (§ 686.32(b)(3)(ii));
• Explain the circumstances, as described in § 686.43, under which a TEACH Grant will convert to a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan (§ 686.32(b)(3)(iii));
• Emphasize that once a TEACH Grant converts to a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan, it cannot reconvert to a grant (§ 686.32(b)(3)(iv)); and
• Review for the grant recipient information on the availability of the Department's Student Loan Ombudsman's office (§ 686.32(b)(3)(v)).
Section 686.32(c)(1) requires an institution to ensure that each grant recipient receives exit counseling before he or she ceases to attend the institution at a time determined by the institution. Section 686.32(c)(2) provides that subsequent counseling may be conducted by the same means as allowed for initial counseling in § 686.32(a)(2), except that in the case of a grant recipient enrolled in a correspondence program or in a study-abroad program, § 686.32(c)(2) states that the grant recipient may be provided with written counseling materials within 30 days after he or she completes the TEACH Grant-eligible program.
Section 686.32(c)(3) provides that within 30 days of learning that a grant recipient has withdrawn from the institution without the institution's knowledge, or from a TEACH Grant-eligible program, or failed to complete exit counseling as required, exit counseling must be provided either in-person, through interactive electronic means, or by mailing written counseling materials to the grant recipient's last known address.
Under § 686.32(c)(4)(i) through (xv), exit counseling must—
• Inform the grant recipient of the four-year service obligation that must be completed within the first eight calendar years after completing a TEACH Grant-eligible program in accordance with § 686.12 (§ 686.32(c)(4)(i));
• Inform the grant recipient of the opportunity to request a suspension of the eight-year period for completing the service obligation and the conditions under which a suspension may be granted in accordance with § 686.41 (§ 686.32(c)(4)(ii));
• Provide the grant recipient with information about how to identify low-income schools and high-need fields (§ 686.32(c)(4)(iii));
• Inform the grant recipient that, in order for teaching to count toward the service obligation, the high-need field in which he or she has prepared to teach must be one of the six high-need fields listed in § 686.2, or a high-need field listed in the Nationwide List at the time and for the State in which the grant recipient begins teaching in that field (§ 686.32(c)(4)(iv));
• Explain that the grant recipient will be required to submit to the Secretary each year written documentation of his or her status as a highly qualified teacher in a high-need field at a low-income school, or of his or her intent to complete the service obligation, until the date the service obligation has been met or the date that the grant is converted to a loan, whichever occurs first (§ 686.32(c)(4)(v));
• Explain the circumstances, as described in § 686.43, under which a TEACH Grant will convert to a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan (§ 686.32(c)(4)(vi));
• Emphasize that once a TEACH Grant converts to a loan it cannot be reconverted to a grant (§ 686.32(c)(4)(vii));
• Inform the grant recipient of the average anticipated monthly repayment amount based on a range of student loan indebtedness if the TEACH Grants convert to a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan (§ 686.32(c)(4)(viii));
• Review for the grant recipient available repayment options if the TEACH Grant converts to a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan, including the standard repayment, extended repayment, graduated repayment, income-contingent and income-based repayment plans, and loan consolidation (§ 686.32(c)(4)(ix));
• Suggest debt-management strategies to the grant recipient that would facilitate repayment if the TEACH Grant converts to a loan (§ 686.32(c)(4)(x));
• Explain to the grant recipient how to contact the Secretary (§ 686.32(c)(4)(xi));
• Describe the likely consequences of loan default, including adverse credit reports, garnishment of wages, Federal offset, and litigation (§ 686.32(c)(4)(xii));
• Review the conditions under which the grant recipient may defer or forbear repayment, obtain a full or partial discharge, or receive teacher loan forgiveness if the TEACH Grant converts to a loan (§ 686.32(c)(4)(xiii));
• Review for the grant recipient information on the availability of the Department's Student Loan Ombudsman's office (§ 686.32(c)(4)(xiv)); and
• Inform the grant recipient of the availability of title IV loan information in the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) (§ 686.32(c)(4)(xv)).
Section 686.32(d) requires the institution to maintain documentation substantiating the institution's compliance with the TEACH Grant initial, subsequent, and exit counseling requirements for each TEACH Grant recipient.
We propose to amend the current initial counseling requirement in § 686.32(a)(3)(iii) to require that the counseling explain to the recipient that for teaching to count toward a grant recipient's service obligation, the high-need field in which the grant recipient has prepared to teach must be one of the six high-need fields listed in § 686.2, or must be a high-need field listed in the Nationwide List for the State in which the grant recipient teaches—
(1) At the time the grant recipient begins teaching in that field, even if that field subsequently loses its high-need designation for that State; or
(2) For teaching service performed on or after July 1, 2010, at the time the recipient signed the agreement to serve or repay or received the TEACH Grant, even if that field subsequently loses its high-need designation for that State before the grant recipient begins teaching in that field.
We propose to redesignate current § 686.32(a)(3)(viii), in initial counseling, as (a)(3)(ix), and redesignate current § 686.32(b)(3)(iv), in subsequent counseling, as § 686.32(b)(3)(v), and to amend the redesignated paragraphs to state that the counseling must explain to the recipient that once a TEACH Grant converts to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan, it may reconvert to a grant only if—
(1) The Secretary determines that the grant converted to a loan in error; or
(2) In the case of a grant recipient whose TEACH Grant was converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan in accordance with proposed new § 686.43(a)(1)(ii), within one year of the conversion date the grant recipient provides documentation showing that he or she is satisfying the service obligation within the eight-year service obligation period.
Finally, we propose to add new § 686.32(a)(3)(viii)(A) and (B) in initial counseling, and new § 686.32(b)(3)(iv)(A) and (B) in subsequent counseling. Proposed new § 686.32(a)(3)(viii)(A) and (b)(3)(iv)(A) would provide that the counseling must explain to the recipient that to avoid further accrual of interest as described in proposed § 686.12(b)(4)(ii), a grant recipient who decides not to teach in a qualified school or field, or who for any other reason no longer intends to satisfy the service obligation, may request that the Secretary convert his or her TEACH Grant to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan that the recipient may begin repaying immediately, instead of waiting for the TEACH Grant to be converted to a loan under the conditions described in proposed § 686.43(a)(1)(ii).
Proposed new § 686.32(a)(3)(viii)(B) and (b)(3)(iv)(B) would provide that the counseling must explain that if a grant recipient requests that a TEACH Grant be converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan in accordance with proposed § 686.43(a)(1)(i), the conversion of the grant to a loan cannot be reversed.
We propose to revise § 686.32(c)(4)(i) to provide that exit counseling must review the terms and conditions of the TEACH Grant agreement to serve or repay as described in § 686.12 and emphasize to the grant recipient that the four-year service obligation must be completed within the eight-year period described in § 686.12.
We propose to add to the exit counseling requirements new § 686.32(c)(4)(ii), which would state that exit counseling must explain the treatment of a grant recipient who withdraws from and then re-enrolls in a TEACH Grant-eligible program at a TEACH Grant-eligible institution as described in proposed § 686.12(c). We would redesignate current § 686.32(c)(4)(ii), (iii), and (iv) as (c)(4)(iii), (iv), and (v), respectively.
We propose to revise redesignated § 686.32(c)(4)(v) by making the same changes we are proposing to make in § 686.32(a)(3)(iii) for initial counseling, as described earlier.
The proposed regulations would remove current § 686.32(c)(4)(v) and add new § 686.32(c)(4)(vi) and (vii).
Proposed new § 686.32(c)(4)(vi) would specify that exit counseling must emphasize to the grant recipient that if he or she fails or refuses to complete the service obligation contained in the agreement to serve or repay or fails to meet any other condition of the agreement to serve or repay, the TEACH Grant must be repaid as a Direct Unsubsidized Loan, and the grant recipient will be obligated to repay the full amount of each grant and the accrued interest from each disbursement date.
Proposed new § 686.32(c)(4)(vii) would require exit counseling to explain to the grant recipient that the Secretary will, at least annually during the service obligation period, send the recipient the notice described in § 686.43(a)(2).
We propose to redesignate current § 686.32(c)(4)(vi) as (c)(4)(viii) and add new (c)(4)(ix). Proposed new (c)(4)(ix) would require exit counseling to provide grant recipients with the same information that we propose to include in new § 686.32(a)(3)(viii) and (b)(3)(iv) for initial and subsequent counseling, respectively, as described earlier.
The proposed regulations would redesignate current § 686.32(c)(4)(vii) as (c)(4)(x) and revise the redesignated paragraph by making the same changes as described earlier for proposed redesignated § 686.32(a)(3)(ix) and (b)(3)(v) in the initial and subsequent counseling regulations, respectively.
Finally, we propose to remove current §§ 686.32(c)(4)(viii), (ix), and (x), retain current § 686.32(c)(4)(xi), and remove current §§ 686.32(c)(4)(xii), (xiii), (xiv), and (xv).
We propose to add a conversion counseling requirement in new § 686.32(e). Under proposed § 686.32(e)(1), at the time a TEACH Grant recipient's TEACH Grant is converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan, the Secretary would conduct conversion counseling with the recipient by interactive electronic means and by mailing written counseling materials to the most recent address provided by the recipient.
Proposed § 686.32(e)(2)(i) through (xv) would specify that conversion counseling—
(1) Informs the borrower of the average anticipated monthly repayment amount based on the borrower's indebtedness (§ 686.32(e)(2)(i));
(2) Reviews for the borrower available repayment plan options, including standard, graduated, extended, income-contingent, and income-based repayment plans, with a description of the different features of each plan and the difference in interest paid and total payments under each plan (§ 686.32(e)(2)(ii));
(3) Explains to the borrower the options to prepay the loan, to pay the loan on a shorter schedule, and to change repayment plans (§ 686.32(e)(2)(iii));
(4) Provides information on the effects of loan consolidation including, at a minimum, the effects of consolidation on total interest to be paid and length of repayment, the effects of consolidation on a borrower's underlying loan benefits, including grace periods, loan forgiveness, cancellation, and deferment opportunities, and the options of the borrower to prepay the loan and to change repayment plans (§ 686.32(e)(2)(iv));
(5) Includes debt-management strategies that are designed to facilitate repayment (§ 686.32(e)(2)(v));
(6) Explains to the borrower the availability of Public Service Loan
(7) Explains how the borrower may request reconsideration of the conversion of the TEACH Grant to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan if the borrower believes that the grant converted to a loan in error (§ 686.32(e)(2)(vii));
(8) Describes the likely consequences of default, including adverse credit reports, delinquent debt collection procedures under Federal law, and litigation (§ 686.32(e)(2)(viii));
(9) Informs the borrower of the grace period as described in § 686.43(c) (§ 686.32(e)(2)(ix));
(10) Provides a general description of the terms and conditions under which a borrower may obtain full or partial forgiveness or discharge of the loan (including under the PSLF Program), defer repayment of the loan, or be granted a forbearance on repayment of the loan, and provides a copy, either in print or by electronic means, of the information the Secretary makes available pursuant to section 485(d) of the HEA (§ 686.32(e)(2)(x));
(11) Requires the borrower to provide current information concerning their name, address, Social Security number, and driver's license number and State of issuance, as well as the borrower's permanent address (§ 686.32(e)(2)(xi));
(12) Reviews for the borrower information on the availability of the Student Loan Ombudsman's office (§ 686.32(e)(2)(xii));
(13) Informs the borrower of the availability of title IV loan information in the NSLDS and how NSLDS can be used to obtain title IV loan status information (§ 686.32(e)(2)(xiii));
(14) Provides a general description of the types of tax benefits that may be available to borrowers (§ 686.32(e)(2)(xiv)); and
(15) Informs the borrower of the amount of interest that has accrued on the converted TEACH Grants and explains that any unpaid interest will be capitalized at the end of the grace period (§ 686.32(e)(2)(xv)).
We are proposing to add new § 686.32(a)(3)(viii), (b)(3)(iv), and (c)(4)(ix) to the initial, subsequent, and exit counseling regulations, respectively, in response to a recommendation from the TEACH Grant subcommittee. As explained in the discussions of the proposed changes to §§ 686.12 and 686.43, subcommittee members recommended that we include in the agreement to serve or repay and in the notice described in proposed § 686.43(a)(2) an explanation that if a grant recipient decides not to teach in a qualifying school or field, or for any other reason does not intend to satisfy the service obligation, the recipient can avoid further accrual of interest by asking the Secretary to convert the TEACH Grant to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan that the recipient can being repaying immediately, instead of waiting for the grant to be converted later. If a grant recipient requests loan conversion as soon as the recipient decides that he or she no longer intends to satisfy the service obligation and begins repaying the loan, it would reduce the amount of interest the recipient must pay on the converted grant because interest would be charged from the date of each TEACH Grant disbursement. The subcommittee members believed it was important for a grant recipient to understand that if at any point he or she no longer intends to satisfy the service obligation, it may be in the recipient's best interest to immediately ask the Secretary to convert the TEACH Grant to a loan so that the recipient can begin repaying the loan. For the same reason, the subcommittee recommended that we provide this information to grant recipients during initial, subsequent, and exit counseling. The subcommittee further recommended that we add a requirement for initial, subsequent, and exit counseling to explain that if a grant recipient who no longer intends to satisfy the service obligation asks the Secretary to convert a TEACH Grant to a loan, the loan cannot be reconverted to a grant. The subcommittee believed it was important for grant recipients to understand that while it may be beneficial to request loan conversion as soon as they decide that they no longer intend to satisfy the service obligation, the conversion of a grant to a loan at a recipient's request is permanent and cannot be reversed. The main negotiating committee supported these recommendations.
Section 686.32(a)(3)(viii) (in the initial counseling regulations), (b)(3)(iv) (subsequent counseling), and (c)(4)(vii) (exit counseling) provide that once a TEACH Grant is converted to a loan, the loan cannot be reconverted to a grant. For consistency with proposed changes in § 686.43, we initially proposed to revise these counseling provisions to state that once a TEACH Grant converts to a loan, it may reconvert to a grant if the grant converted to a loan in error. For the reasons explained in the discussion of the proposed changes to § 686.43, during the negotiated rulemaking process the Department proposed to further amend § 686.43 by adding new § 686.43(a)(5), which provides that if a grant recipient's TEACH Grant converts to a loan in accordance with § 686.43(a)(1)(ii), the Secretary will reconvert the loan to a grant if, within one year of the conversion date, the grant recipient provides the Secretary with documentation showing that he or she is satisfying the service obligation. The subcommittee and main committee supported this change and recommended that the information in proposed new § 686.43(a)(5) be provided to grant recipients during initial, subsequent, and exit counseling, so that grant recipients would understand the conditions under which a converted TEACH Grant can be reconverted to a loan before they receive a grant and before they begin the service obligation period. Accordingly, we are proposing to add the information contained in proposed § 686.43(a)(5) to the initial, subsequent, and exit counseling regulations.
In the exit counseling regulations, we propose to expand § 686.32(c)(4)(i) in response to a recommendation from the subcommittee that the main negotiating committee accepted. Specifically, the subcommittee believed that grant recipients would benefit from receiving a review of all the terms and conditions of the agreement to serve or repay during exit counseling, in addition to a reminder of the timeframe during which the four-year service obligation must be completed.
We are proposing to add new § 686.32(c)(4)(ii) to the exit counseling requirements because it is important for grant recipients who receive exit counseling prior to withdrawing from an institution to understand the terms and conditions that will apply if they later decide to return to school and re-enroll in the same or a different TEACH Grant-eligible program.
We are proposing to remove current § 686.32(c)(4)(v) from the exit counseling regulations for consistency with proposed changes in § 686.43 that eliminate the requirement for grant recipients to annually provide the Secretary with documentation of their
We propose to add new § 686.32(c)(4)(vi) based on the subcommittee's recommendation that it would be important for exit counseling to explain to grant recipients in greater detail the consequences of failing or refusing to complete the service obligation as described in the agreement to serve or repay, so that they will understand those consequences before they begin the service obligation period.
We propose to add new § 686.32(c)(4)(vii) in response to a recommendation from the subcommittee, which was supported by the main committee, that exit counseling tell grant recipients about the notice from the Secretary that they will receive at least annually during the service obligation period, as described in proposed § 686.43(a)(2), so that the recipients will know what types of communications they can expect to receive from the Secretary during their service obligation period.
We propose to remove current § 686.32(c)(4)(viii) through (x) and (xii) through (xv) from the exit counseling requirements. These paragraphs require exit counseling to cover information that is relevant to a grant recipient only if a TEACH Grant is converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan, including, but not limited to, anticipated monthly loan payment amounts, available repayment options, debt management strategies, the consequences of defaulting on a loan, and loan deferment, forbearance, and forgiveness options. We propose to retain current § 686.32(c)(4)(xi), which states that exit counseling must explain to the grant recipient how to contact the Secretary.
The TEACH Grant subcommittee believed that it was not necessary to provide grant recipients with detailed information about loan terms and conditions unless and until their TEACH Grants convert to loans. If a grant recipient's TEACH Grant later converts to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan, the conversion may not occur until several years after the exit counseling has been provided. Therefore, the subcommittee recommended that we remove from exit counseling the requirements to provide information that would apply only if a grant converts to a loan, and instead include this information, along with additional loan-specific information, as part of a new conversion counseling requirement. The subcommittee recommended that the Secretary provide conversion counseling to a grant recipient at the time of loan conversion, so that the recipient would be informed of important information about loan terms and conditions shortly before he or she must begin repayment on the loan.
For the reasons explained above, we are proposing to add a new conversion counseling requirement in § 686.32(e). Because the Secretary makes the determination to convert a TEACH Grant to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan, the Secretary would provide the conversion counseling when the recipient's grant converts to a loan. Based on the recommendations of the subcommittee, we are proposing that the Secretary would provide conversion counseling through interactive electronic means and by mailing written counseling materials to the most recent address provided by the grant recipient. The subcommittee believed it was important to mail written counseling materials to grant recipients, to ensure that recipients who fail to complete the interactive electronic counseling would still receive the conversion counseling information.
The subcommittee also believed that it would be appropriate to base the proposed new conversion counseling regulations on the current Direct Loan Program exit counseling regulations in 34 CFR 685.304(b), since Direct Loan exit counseling is intended to provide information that is important for borrowers to know as they prepare to begin repayment of their loans. Accordingly, the subcommittee recommended language that would require conversion counseling to provide grant recipients with much of the same information that is provided to Direct Loan borrowers during exit counseling, sometimes with minor modifications, and with additional information that is specific to grant recipients whose TEACH Grants have been converted to Direct Unsubsidized Loans. The proposed conversion counseling regulations would not include certain elements of the Direct Loan exit counseling regulations that are not relevant to TEACH Grant recipients whose grants have converted to loans. The proposed conversion counseling would include all the elements that we are proposing to remove from the current TEACH Grant exit counseling regulations, as explained earlier.
Proposed § 686.32(e)(2)(i) through (v), (viii), and (x) through (xiv), as described under “Proposed Regulations,” would mirror the corresponding Direct Loan exit counseling regulations in 34 CFR 685.304(b)(4)(i), as shown in the table below.
Generally, the language in the proposed TEACH Grant conversion counseling provisions listed in the table above is identical to the language in the corresponding Direct Loan exit counseling regulations. However, while the Direct Loan exit counseling provision in 34 CFR 685.301(b)(4)(i) specifies that exit counseling must inform the borrower of the average anticipated monthly payment amount based on either the borrower's indebtedness or on average student borrower indebtedness, the corresponding regulation in proposed § 686.32(e)(2)(i) would specify that conversion counseling informs the borrower of the average anticipated monthly payment amount based only on the borrower's indebtedness, as the subcommittee believed it would be most
Based on the subcommittee's recommendations, we also propose to specify in § 686.32(e)(2)(vi), (vii), (ix), and (xv) that conversion counseling must explain the availability of PSLF and teacher loan forgiveness, explain how the borrower may request reconsideration of the conversion of the TEACH Grant to a loan if the borrower believes that the grant was converted to a loan in error, inform the borrower of the grace period as described in § 686.43(c), and inform the borrower of the amount of interest that has accrued on the converted TEACH Grant, with an explanation that any unpaid interest will be capitalized at the end of the grace period. The subcommittee believed that it was important to provide this additional information to grant recipients whose TEACH Grants have been converted to loans, so that they would know about the options for loan forgiveness, the opportunity to request reconsideration if they believe their grant was converted to a loan in error, and when they must begin repaying the converted TEACH Grant and how they can avoid capitalization of accrued interest.
HEA section 420N(b)(1)(C) requires an applicant for a TEACH Grant to agree to teach in one of the fields of mathematics, science, foreign language, bilingual education, special education, reading specialist, or another field documented as high-need by the Federal Government, State government, or LEA, and approved by the Secretary.
HEA section 420N(b)(1)(B) requires a TEACH Grant applicant to agree to teach in a school described in HEA section 465(a)(2)(A). Section 465(c)(2) of the HEA provides that if a teacher performs service in a school that meets the requirements of section 465(a)(2)(A) of the HEA in any year, and in a subsequent year that school fails to meet the requirements of section 465(a)(2)(A), the teacher may continue to teach in the school and will be eligible for loan cancellation pursuant to section 465(a)(1) of the HEA.
The HEA does not address the treatment of TEACH Grant recipients who are unable to complete a full academic year of teaching service.
(1) He or she is employed as a full-time teacher in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement to serve described in § 686.12; or
(2) He or she is not yet employed as a full-time teacher but intends to meet the terms and conditions of the agreement to serve described in § 686.12.
Section 686.40(b) provides that if a grant recipient is performing full-time teaching service in accordance with the agreement to serve, the grant recipient must, upon completion of each of the four required years of teaching, provide to the Secretary documentation of that teaching service on a form approved by the Secretary and certified by the chief administrative officer of the school where the grant recipient is teaching. The documentation must show that the grant recipient is teaching in a low-income school.
Section 686.40(b) further provides that if the school where the grant recipient is employed meets the requirements of a low-income school in the first year of the recipient's four years of teaching, but fails to meet those requirements in subsequent years, those subsequent years of teaching qualify for purposes of satisfying the service obligation.
Section 686.40(c)(1) states that the documentation required under § 686.40(b) must also show that the grant recipient—
(1) Taught a majority of classes during the period being certified in any of the high-need fields of mathematics, science, a foreign language, bilingual education, English language acquisition, special education, or as a reading specialist; or
(2) Taught a majority of classes during the period being certified in a State in another high-need field designated by that State and listed in the Nationwide List, except that teaching service does not satisfy the requirements of the agreement to serve if that teaching service is in a geographic region of a State or in a specific grade level not associated with a high-need field of a State designated in the Nationwide List as having a shortage of elementary or secondary school teachers.
Section 686.40(c)(2) provides that if a grant recipient begins qualified full-time teaching service in a State in a high-need field designated by that State and listed in the Nationwide List, and in subsequent years that high-need field is no longer designated by the State in the Nationwide List, the grant recipient will be considered to continue to perform qualified full-time teaching service in a high-need field of that State and to continue to fulfill the service obligation.
Section 686.40(d) specifies that the documentation of teaching service provided by a grant recipient must also include evidence that the recipient is a highly qualified teacher.
Section 686.40(e) provides that for purposes of completing the service obligation, an elementary or secondary academic year may be counted as one of the grant recipient's four complete academic years if the grant recipient completes at least one-half of the academic year and the grant recipient's school employer considers the grant recipient to have fulfilled his or her contract requirements for the academic year for the purposes of salary increases, tenure, and retirement if the grant recipient is unable to complete an academic year due to—
(1) A condition that is a qualifying reason for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) (29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1) and (3)); or
(2) A call or order to active duty status for more than 30 days as a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces named in 10 U.S.C. 10101, or service as a member of the National Guard on full-time National Guard duty, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(d)(5), under a call to active service in connection with a war, military operation, or a national emergency.
Finally, § 686.40(f) provides that a grant recipient who taught in more than one qualifying school during an academic year and demonstrates that the combined teaching service was the
(1) Revise and restructure redesignated § 686.40(a) to include, with certain changes, the service obligation documentation requirements that are in current §§ 686.40(c) and (d);
(2) Remove current § 686.40(c) and (d); and
(3) Redesignate current § 686.40(e) and (f) as § 686.40(b) and (c), respectively.
We propose to remove the language in current § 686.40(c)(1)(ii) stating that teaching in a high-need field listed in the Nationwide List does not satisfy the service obligation requirements if that teaching service is in a geographic region of a State or in a specific grade level not associated with a high-need field of a State designated in the Nationwide List as having a shortage of elementary or secondary school teachers. We also propose to replace the information in current § 686.40(c)(2) with a cross-reference to § 686.12(d) in proposed new § 686.40(a)(2)(ii).
In the introductory text to redesignated § 686.40(b), we propose to retain the current provision stating that if a grant recipient completes at least one-half of an academic year of teaching and the grant recipient's school employer considers the grant recipient to have fulfilled his or her contract requirements for the academic year for the purposes of salary increases, tenure, and retirement, the partial year of teaching may be counted as one of the required four complete academic years of teaching if the grant recipient was unable to teach for the remainder of the year due to certain conditions described in proposed redesignated § 686.40(b)(1) through (3).
In redesignated § 686.40(b)(2), we propose that a call or order to Federal or State active duty, or active service as a member of a Reserve Component of the Armed Forces named in 10 U.S.C 10101, or service as a member of the National Guard on full-time National Guard duty, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(d)(5), would be a condition that allows for less than a full school year of teaching to count as one year toward satisfaction of the TEACH Grant service obligation, if the other requirements described in the introductory text to redesignated § 686.40(b) are met. We propose to eliminate the current requirement that National Guard service qualifies only under a call to active service in connection with a war, military operation, or a national emergency.
Finally, we propose to add, in § 686.40(b)(3), a new circumstance under which less than a full year of teaching may count as a full year toward satisfaction of the TEACH Grant service obligation. Specifically, proposed § 686.40(b)(3) would provide that a grant recipient who completes at least half of an academic year of qualifying teaching and who meets the other requirements described in the redesignated § 686.40(b) introductory text could have that partial year of teaching counted as one full year of the four required years of teaching if the recipient is unable to teach for the remainder of the academic year because he or she resides in or is employed in a federally declared major disaster area as defined in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42. U.S.C. 5122(2)).
To present service obligation documentation requirements more clearly and concisely, we are proposing to include in redesignated § 686.40(a) the provisions that are in current §§ 686.40(b), (c), and (d), and to cover the requirements related to teaching in a high-need field through a cross-reference to § 686.12(d) instead of repeating those requirements in § 686.40(a).
Further, we are proposing to eliminate the provision in current § 686.40(c)(1)(ii) that prohibits a TEACH Grant recipient from satisfying the service obligation by teaching in a geographic region of a State or in a specific grade level not associated with a high-need field for a State that is designated in the Nationwide List as having a shortage of elementary or secondary school teachers. Subcommittee members believed that this provision of the current regulations is inconsistent with the goal of the TEACH Grant Program to encourage teachers to accept positions in low-income schools where there is an urgent need for teachers. The subcommittee members noted that in many parts of the country there is a general shortage of teachers in specific geographic regions, such as in rural areas, or in certain grade levels, without regard to subject areas taught. For example, a State might have an urgent need for elementary school teachers, or a need for teachers in all subject areas in a particular county. However, under the current TEACH Grant regulations a grant recipient may not satisfy the service obligation simply by teaching at a low-income elementary school in a State where there is a shortage of elementary school teachers as documented in the Nationwide List, or by teaching in a low-income school located in a particular geographic area of a State where there is a shortage of teachers as documented in the Nationwide List, unless the grant recipient is also teaching in a subject area that is a high-need field. The subcommittee members urged the full committee to eliminate the current regulatory limitation, to enable more grant recipients to teach where there is the greatest need for teachers. With the full committee having agreed to the subcommittee's recommendation, the Department proposes this change.
A non-Federal negotiator on the negotiated rulemaking committee representing the interests of military service members recommended that we make the changes in redesignated § 686.40(b)(2) to more accurately reflect current active duty provisions. We agreed to make the suggested changes.
We are proposing to add residing in or being employed in a federally declared major disaster area as another condition that would allow less than a full year of teaching to count as one full year toward satisfaction of the service obligation because we believe that grant recipients who teach for part of an academic year but who are unable to teach for the remainder of the year as a result of their home or place of employment being adversely affected by a natural disaster should receive credit for the partial year of qualifying teaching that was completed, assuming that the other conditions described in the introductory text of redesignated § 686.40(b) are met.
(1) Enrollment in a program of study for which the recipient would be eligible for a TEACH Grant or in a program of study that has been determined by a State to satisfy the requirements for certification or licensure to teach in the State's elementary or secondary schools;
(2) A condition that is a qualifying reason for leave under the FMLA; or
(3) A call or order to active duty status for more than 30 days as a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces named in 10 U.S.C. 10101, or service as a member of the National Guard on full-time National Guard duty, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(d)(5), under a call to active service in connection with a war, military operation, or a national emergency.
Section 686.41(a)(2) provides that a grant recipient may receive a suspension in one-year increments that—
(1) Does not exceed a combined total of three years for suspensions based on enrollment in a qualifying period of study or a condition that is a qualifying reason for leave under the FMLA; or
(2) Does not exceed a total of three years for suspensions based on qualifying military service.
Section 686.41(b) specifies that a grant recipient, or his or her representative in the case of a grant recipient who requests a suspension based on qualifying military service, must apply for a suspension in writing on a form approved by the Secretary prior to being subject to any of the conditions under § 686.43(a)(1) through (5) that would cause the recipient's TEACH Grant to be converted to a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan.
Section 686.41(c) requires a grant recipient, or his or her representative in the case of a grant recipient who requests a suspension based on qualifying military service, to provide the Secretary with documentation supporting the suspension request as well as current contact information including home address and telephone number.
We propose to redesignate current §§ 686.41(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) as (a)(1)(iii) and (iv), respectively, and add new § 686.41(a)(1)(ii), which would provide that a grant recipient may request a suspension of the eight-year service obligation period while he or she is receiving State-required instruction or otherwise fulfilling requirements for licensure to teach in a State's elementary or secondary schools.
We propose to revise redesignated § 686.41(a)(1)(iv) (current § 686.41(a)(1)(iii)) to provide that a grant recipient may request a suspension of the service obligation period based on a call to order to Federal or State active duty or active service as a member of the Reserve Component of the Armed Forces named in 10 U.S.C. 10101, or service as a member of the National Guard on full-time National Guard duty, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(d)(5). The proposed revisions to redesignated § 686.41(a)(1)(iv) would remove the current requirements that the active duty status must be for more than 30 days, and that a suspension based on service as a member of the National Guard on full-time Guard duty must be under a call to active service in connection with a war, military operation, or a national emergency.
Under proposed new § 686.41(a)(1)(v), a grant recipient could request a suspension of the eight-year period for completing the service obligation based on military orders for the recipient's spouse for deployment with a military unit or as an individual in support of a call to Federal or State active duty or active service, or a change of permanent duty station from a location in the continental United States to a location outside of the continental United States or from a location in a State to any location outside of that State.
Under proposed new § 686.41(a)(1)(vi), a grant recipient could request a suspension of the eight-year period for completing the service obligation due to residing in or being employed in a federally declared major disaster area as defined in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)).
We propose to revise § 686.41(a)(2) to specify the maximum periods of time for which a grant recipient may receive a suspension of the eight-year service obligation under the current and proposed new suspension conditions.
Revised § 686.41(a)(2) introductory text would continue to provide that for all suspension conditions, a grant recipient may receive suspensions in one-year increments.
Under proposed § 686.41(a)(2)(i), a grant recipient could receive suspensions under §§ 686.41(a)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) that do not exceed a combined total of three years. Current § 686.41(a)(2)(ii) would continue to provide that a grant recipient may receive suspensions under redesignated § 686.41(a)(2)(iv) (current § 686.41(a)(1)(iii)) that do not exceed a total of three years.
Proposed § 686.41(a)(2)(iii) and (v) would establish maximum three-year suspension limits for suspensions granted under proposed new § 686.41(a)(1)(v) and (vi), respectively.
We propose to revise § 686.41(b) and (c) to provide that, as is currently permitted for suspensions under current § 686.41(a)(1)(iii) (redesignated as § 686.41(a)(1)(iv)), a TEACH Grant's representative may request a suspension under proposed new § 686.41(a)(1)(vi) and provide the documentation supporting the suspension request on behalf of the recipient.
We propose to add § 686.41(d), which would provide that, on a case-by-case basis, the Secretary may grant a grant recipient a temporary suspension of the period for completing the service obligation if the Secretary determines that the recipient was unable to complete a full academic year of teaching or begin the next academic year of teaching due to exceptional circumstances significantly affecting the operation of the school or educational service agency where the grant recipient was employed or the grant recipient's ability to teach.
Finally, we propose to add § 686.41(e), which would provide that the Secretary notifies the grant recipient of the outcome of the application for a suspension.
The subcommittee noted that in some cases a grant recipient who is certified to teach in one State may move to a different State and be unable to teach in that State until he or she has received State-required instruction provided by the State or otherwise fulfilled State- requirements for licensure to teach in that State's elementary or secondary schools. To ensure that the grant recipient would be able to complete the required four years of teaching within the eight-year service obligation period, the subcommittee members recommended that, in this circumstance, the grant recipient be allowed to receive a temporary suspension of the eight-year period while he or she is fulfilling the new State's teacher licensure requirements. Given that these requirements may vary from State to State, we invite comments on how to best formulate this proposed suspension condition.
We are proposing the changes in redesignated § 686.41(a)(1)(iv) in response to a recommendation by members of the main negotiating committee that we update the current regulatory language to better conform with the terminology used by the military.
The subcommittee recommended that we also provide a new suspension option for grant recipients who are military spouses to cover circumstances where the recipient's spouse receives military orders for deployment with a military unit or as an individual in support of a call to Federal or State active duty or active service, or receives orders for a change of permanent duty station from a location in the continental United States to a location outside of the continental United States or from a location in a State to any location outside that State. Subcommittee members noted that if a grant recipient accompanies his or her spouse on a military reassignment, it may not be possible for the recipient to find a teaching position in a high-need field at a low-income school in the new location, and they felt that it would be unfair to the grant recipient to not allow for a temporary suspension of the service obligation period in this circumstance.
The current regulations at § 686.41(a)(2)(i) specify that periods of suspension based on enrollment in a qualifying program (§ 686.41(a)(1)(i)) or a condition that is a qualifying reason for leave under the FMLA (current § 686.41(a)(1)(ii), to be redesignated as § 686.41(a)(1)(iii)) may not exceed a combined total of three years. Subcommittee members recommended that this combined three-year limit should also include the proposed new suspension condition based on fulfilling requirements for licensure to teach in a State's elementary or secondary schools. The subcommittee did not believe it was necessary to establish a separate maximum time period for the proposed new suspension, because a recipient who needs to fulfill State requirements to teach would likely satisfy those requirements either by completing a program of study at an institution or through State-provided instruction, but not both. Thus, the subcommittee felt that it was reasonable to expand the existing combined three-year limit in § 686.41(a)(2)(i) to include the proposed new suspension.
Consistent with the current three-year maximum period for suspensions based on qualifying military service and with the Department's proposal to set a three-year maximum for the proposed new suspension for grant recipients who reside in or are employed in a federally declared major disaster area, the subcommittee recommended that the regulations set a three-year limit for the proposed new suspension for military spouses under § 686.41(a)(1)(v), and provide for the new military spouse suspension to be granted in one-year increments, the same as the regulations provide for all other suspensions.
Consistent with the existing regulatory provision that allows for a grant recipient's representative to submit a request for a suspension based on qualifying military service on behalf of the recipient and provide any required documentation, the subcommittee recommended that the same be allowed in the case of a grant recipient who qualifies for a suspension based on residing in or being employed in a federally declared major disaster area. As in the case of a grant recipient who is performing military service, a grant recipient who is adversely affected by a disaster may find it difficult to submit a suspension request and any required supporting documentation. Allowing for a representative to submit the suspension request and documentation on the grant recipient's behalf would ease the burden on the recipient. The proposed changes in § 686.41(b) and (c) reflect this recommendation.
The subcommittee believed there could be other unforeseen circumstances that might temporarily prevent a grant recipient from fulfilling the service obligation requirements, and recommended adding a provision allowing the Secretary to grant temporary suspensions on a case-by-case basis if the Secretary determines that there are exceptional circumstances affecting the operation of the school or educational agency where a recipient teaches or the recipient's ability to teach.
Finally, to ensure that grant recipients are informed of the status of an application for suspension, the subcommittee recommended specifying in the regulations that the Secretary notifies the grant recipient regarding the outcome of an application for suspension.
Current § 686.42(a)(1) contains the criteria under which the Secretary discharges an agreement to serve based on the death of a TEACH Grant recipient.
Current § 686.42(b)(1) provides that a grant recipient's agreement to serve is discharged if the recipient becomes totally and permanently disabled, as defined in 34 CFR 682.200(b), and the grant recipient applies for and satisfies the eligibility requirements for a TPD discharge in accordance with 34 CFR 685.213.
Current § 686.42(b)(2) specifies that the eight-year time period in which the grant recipient must complete the service obligation remains in effect during the conditional TPD discharge period described in 34 CFR 685.213(c)(2) unless the grant recipient is eligible for a suspension based on a condition that is a qualifying reason for leave under the FMLA.
Under current § 686.42(b)(3), interest continues to accrue on each TEACH Grant disbursement unless and until the TEACH Grant recipient's agreement to serve is discharged based on the recipient's TPD.
Current § 686.42(b)(4) provides that if the grant recipient satisfies the criteria for a TPD discharge during and at the end of the three-year conditional discharge period, the Secretary discharges the grant recipient's service obligation.
Finally, current § 686.42(b)(5) provides that if, at any time during or at the end of the three-year conditional discharge period, the Secretary determines that the grant recipient does not meet the eligibility criteria for a TPD discharge, the Secretary ends the conditional discharge period and the grant recipient is once again subject to the terms of the agreement to serve.
Current § 686.42(c) provides that a TEACH Grant recipient who has completed or who has otherwise ceased enrollment in a program for which he or she received TEACH Grants and has exceeded the maximum period of time allowed for a military service suspension under § 686.41(a)(2)(ii) may qualify for a proportional discharge of his or her service obligation due to an extended call or order to active duty status. To apply for a military discharge, a grant recipient or his or her representative must submit a written request to the Secretary.
Current § 686.42(c)(2) provides that a grant recipient as described in current § 686.42(c)(1) may receive a—
(1) One-year discharge of the service obligation if a call or order to active duty status is for more than three years;
(2) Two-year discharge of the service obligation if a call or order to active duty status is for more than four years;
(3) Three-year discharge of the service obligation if a call or order to active duty status is for more than five years; or
(4) Full discharge of the service obligation if a call or order to active duty status is for more than six years.
Current § 686.42(c)(3) requires a grant recipient or his or her representative to provide the Secretary with—
(1) A written statement from the grant recipient's commanding or personnel officer certifying that the grant recipient is on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States and the dates on which the grant recipient's service began and is expected to end; or
(2) A copy of the grant recipient's official military orders, and a copy of the grant recipient's military identification.
Current § 686.42(c)(3) specifies that for military discharge purposes, the Armed Forces means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard.
Current § 686.42(d)(5) provides that based on a request for a military discharge from a grant recipient or his or her representative, the Secretary will notify the grant recipient or the representative of the outcome of the discharge request, and specifies that for the portion on the service obligation that remains, the grant recipient remains responsible for fulfilling the service obligation in accordance with § 686.12.
New § 686.42(b)(2) would provide that if at any time the Secretary determines that the grant recipient does not meet the requirements of the three-year period following the discharge as described in 34 CFR 685.213(b)(7), the Secretary will notify the grant recipient that the grant recipient's obligation to satisfy the terms of the agreement to serve or repay is reinstated.
New § 686.42(b)(3) would provide that the Secretary's notification under § 686.42(b)(2) will: (1) Include the reason or reasons for the reinstatement; (2) provide information on how the grant recipient may contact the Secretary if the grant recipient has questions about the reinstatement or believes that the agreement to serve or repay was reinstated based on incorrect information; and (3) inform the grant recipient that he or she must satisfy the service obligation within the portion of the eight-year period that remained after the date of the discharge.
New § 686.42(b)(4) would provide that if the TEACH Grant made to a recipient whose TEACH Grant agreement to serve or repay is reinstated is later converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan, the recipient will not be required to pay interest that accrued on the TEACH Grant disbursements from the date the agreement to serve or repay was discharged until the date the agreement to serve or repay was reinstated.
Finally, we propose to amend current § 686.42(c)(4) to provide that for military discharge purposes, the Armed Forces also includes a reserve component of the Armed Forces named in 10 U.S.C. 10101, or the National Guard.
We propose to amend current § 686.42(c)(4) for consistency with current § 686.41(a)(1)(iii). Under current § 686.41(a)(1)(iii), a TEACH Grant recipient may qualify for a temporary suspension of the eight-year service obligation period based on qualifying service as a member of Armed Forces named in 10 U.S.C. 10101 or as a member of National Guard. We believe that extended periods of the same type of military service should also qualify a TEACH Grant recipient for discharge of some or all of their service obligation.
The HEA does not address the reconversion of a loan to a TEACH Grant following the conversion of a TEACH Grant to a loan.
Current § 686.43(a)(1) provides that a TEACH Grant will be converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan if the grant recipient, regardless of enrollment status, requests that the TEACH Grant be converted into a loan because he or she has decided not to teach in a qualified school or field or for any other reason.
Current § 686.43(a)(2) provides that a TEACH Grant will convert to a loan if, within 120 days of ceasing enrollment in the institution prior to completing the TEACH Grant-eligible program, the grant recipient has failed to notify the Secretary in accordance with § 686.40(a).
Current § 686.43(a)(3) provides that a TEACH Grant will be converted to a loan if, within one year of ceasing enrollment in the institution prior to completing the TEACH Grant-eligible program, the grant recipient has not been determined eligible for a suspension of the eight-year period for completion of the service obligation as provided in § 686.41, re-enrolled in a TEACH Grant-eligible program, or begun creditable teaching service as described in § 686.12(b).
Current § 686.43(a)(4) provides that a TEACH Grant will be converted to a loan if the grant recipient completes the course of study for which a TEACH Grant was received and does not actively confirm to the Secretary, at least annually, his or her intention to satisfy the agreement to serve.
Finally, current § 686.43(a)(5) provides that a TEACH Grant will be converted to a loan if the grant recipient has completed the TEACH Grant-eligible program but has failed to begin or maintain qualified employment within the timeframe that would allow the recipient to complete the service obligation within the number of years required under § 686.12.
Current § 686.43(b) states that if a TEACH Grant converts to a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan, we do not count that loan against the grant recipient's annual or aggregate Direct Loan limits.
Current § 686.43(c)(1) provides that a grant recipient whose TEACH Grant has been converted to a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan receives a six-month grace period prior to entering repayment, and current § 686.43(c)(2) provides that a grant recipient whose grant has been converted to a loan is eligible for all of the benefits of the Direct Loan Program, including an in-school deferment.
Current § 686.43(d) states that a TEACH Grant that converts to a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan cannot reconvert to a grant.
We also propose to expand current § 686.43(a) by adding new §§ 686.43(a)(2) through (9).
Proposed new § 686.43(a)(2) would specify that at least annually during the eight-year period for completing the service obligation, the Secretary will notify the grant recipient of—
• The terms and conditions the grant recipient must meet to satisfy the service obligation (proposed § 686.43(a)(2)(i));
• The requirement for the grant recipient to provide to the Secretary, upon completion of each of the four required years of teaching service, documentation of the service on a form approved by the Secretary and certified by the chief administrative officer of the school or educational service agency where the recipient taught, including a reminder of the need for the grant recipient to keep a copy of the certification as well as copies of the recipient's own employment documentation (proposed § 686.43(a)(2)(ii));
• The number of years of teaching service that the grant recipient has completed and the remaining timeframe within which the recipient must complete the service obligation (proposed § 686.43(a)(2)(iii));
• The conditions under which a grant recipient may request a temporary suspension of the period for completing the service obligation (proposed § 686.43(a)(2)(iv));
• The conditions described in § 686.43(a)(1) under which TEACH Grant amounts disbursed to the grant recipient will convert to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan (proposed § 686.43(a)(2)(v));
• The potential total interest accrued (proposed § 686.43(a)(2)(vi));
• The process by which the grant recipient may contact the Secretary to request reconsideration of the conversion of a TEACH Grant to a loan, the deadline by which the recipient must submit the request, and a list of the specific documentation required by the Secretary to reconsider the conversion (proposed § 686.43(a)(2)(vii)); and
• An explanation that to avoid further accrual of interest, a grant recipient who decides not to teach in a qualified school or field, or who for any other reason no longer intends to satisfy the service obligation, may request that the Secretary convert his or her TEACH Grant to a loan that the recipient may begin repaying immediately, instead of waiting for the grant to be converted to a loan in accordance with § 686.43(a)(1)(ii) (proposed 686.43(a)(2)(viii)).
Proposed new § 686.43(a)(3) would provide that on or about 90 days before the date that a grant recipient's TEACH Grants would be converted to loans in accordance with § 686.43(a)(1)(ii), the Secretary will notify the recipient of the date by which the recipient must submit documentation showing that the recipient is satisfying the service obligation.
Proposed new § 686.43(a)(4) would provide that if the TEACH Grant amounts disbursed to a recipient convert to a loan, the Secretary will notify the recipient of the conversion and offers conversion counseling in accordance with § 686.32(e).
Under proposed new § 686.43(a)(5), if a grant recipient's TEACH Grant is converted to a loan in accordance with § 686.43(a)(1)(ii), the Secretary will reconvert the loan to a grant if, within one year of the conversion date, the grant recipient provides the Secretary with documentation showing that he or she is satisfying the service obligation.
Under proposed new § 686.43(a)(6), if a grant recipient's TEACH Grant is involuntarily converted to a loan, the Secretary will reconvert the loan to a TEACH Grant based on documentation provided by the grant recipient or in the Department's records demonstrating
Proposed new § 686.43(a)(7) would specify that if a grant recipient who requests reconsideration of the conversion of a TEACH Grant to a loan demonstrates that the grant converted to a loan in error, the Secretary—
• Reconverts the loan to a TEACH Grant (proposed § 686.43(a)(7)(i);
• If the grant recipient completed one or more academic years of qualifying teaching service during the period when the grant was in loan status, applies that teaching service toward the recipient's four-year service obligation and excludes the period when the grant was in loan status from the eight-year period during which the recipient must complete the service obligation (proposed new § 686.43(a)(7)(i)(A));
• If the grant recipient did not complete any academic years of qualifying teaching service during the period when the grant was in loan status, excludes the period when the grant was in loan status from the eight-year period during which the recipient must complete the service obligation (proposed new § 686.43(a)(7)(i)(B));
• Ensures that the grant recipient receives credit for any payments made on the Direct Unsubsidized Loan that reconverted to a TEACH Grant (proposed new § 686.43(a)(7)(ii));
• Notifies the recipient of the reconversion of the loan to a grant and explains that the recipient is once again responsible for meeting all requirements of the service obligation (proposed new § 686.43(a)(7)(iii)); and
• Requests deletion of any derogatory information reported to consumer reporting agencies related to the grant while it was in loan status and, upon a request from the grant recipient, furnishes a statement of error that the recipient may provide to creditors until the recipient's credit history has been corrected (proposed new § 686.43(a)(7)(iv)).
Proposed new § 686.43(a)(8) would specify that if a grant recipient who requests reconsideration of the conversion of a grant to a loan does not demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the grant converted to a loan in error, the Secretary—
• Notifies the recipient that the loan cannot reconvert to a TEACH Grant (proposed new § 686.43(a)(8)(i));
• Explains the reason or reasons why the loan cannot reconvert to a TEACH Grant (proposed new § 686.43(a)(8)(ii)); and
• Explains how the grant recipient may contact the Federal Student Aid Ombudsman if he or she continues to believe that the grant converted to a loan in error (proposed new § 686.43(a)(8)(iii)).
Proposed new § 686.43(a)(9) would provide that a TEACH Grant recipient remains obligated to meet all requirements of the service obligation, even if the recipient does not receive the notice described in proposed § 686.43(a)(2).
In § 686.43(c), we are proposing to revise paragraph (c)(2) by removing the words “including an in-school deferment.”
Finally, we are proposing to revise § 686.43(d) to provide that a TEACH Grant that converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan cannot reconvert to a grant unless the Secretary determines that the grant was converted to a loan in error.
To ensure that grant recipients are regularly reminded of the service obligation requirements, the Department initially proposed during negotiated rulemaking to specify in new § 686.43(a)(2) that, at least annually during the service obligation period, the Secretary would notify the grant recipient of the terms and conditions that must be met to satisfy the service obligation, the requirement for the grant recipient to provide documentation of each completed year of teaching service, the remaining timeframe within which the recipient must complete the service obligation, the conditions under which the recipient may request a temporary suspension of the service obligation period, and the conditions under which a TEACH Grant will be converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan. In response to recommendations from the subcommittee, the Department agreed to expand the contents of the proposed notice to include the number of years of teaching service already completed by the recipient, the potential total accrued interest, information about the process by which a grant recipient may request reconsideration of the conversion of a TEACH Grant to a loan, and an explanation of the grant recipient's option to request conversion of the recipient's TEACH Grants to a loan if the recipient no longer intends to satisfy the service obligation. The subcommittee members felt that it was important to provide grant recipients with this additional information on a regular basis throughout the service obligation period.
We are proposing to add new § 686.43(a)(3) in response to a recommendation made by TEACH Grant subcommittee members. In addition to supporting the Department's proposed changes to the conditions that will result in the conversion of TEACH Grants to loans, several subcommittee members believed that it is important for grant recipients to be notified as they approach the date when they would be subject to loan conversion so that a grant recipient who has been teaching but who has not yet submitted documentation of qualifying teaching service would have an opportunity to do so in time to avoid loan conversion.
We are proposing new § 686.43(a)(4) to reflect in the regulations our current practice of notifying a grant recipient at the time his or her TEACH Grants are converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan, and to further specify in the regulations that conversion counseling will be provided in accordance with proposed § 686.32(e).
We are proposing new § 686.43(a)(5) to address circumstances in which a
We are proposing to add new § 686.43(a)(6) in response to a request from non-federal negotiators to include in the regulations a process comparable to what is described in proposed § 686.43(a)(5) for grant recipients whose grants were converted to loans for reasons other than the condition describe in proposed § 686.43(a)(1)(ii), such as recipients whose grants were converted due to their failure to meet certification requirements or recipients whose grants were improperly converted to loans. Under proposed § 686.43(a)(6), in contrast to proposed § 686.43(a)(5), there would be no maximum timeframe following conversion within which a grant recipient must provide documentation showing that he or she was satisfying the service obligation requirements. The non-federal negotiators supported proposed § 686.43(a)(5), but many were concerned that this provision is too limited in scope and that the one-year period for submitting documentation would not help grant recipients who were meeting the service obligation requirements, but had their grants converted to loans prior to the effective date of the new regulations. These non-federal negotiators felt strongly that the regulations should provide a reconversion process for grant recipients who were meeting the service obligation requirements, but who had their grants converted to loans and who would not be covered by proposed § 686.43(a)(5). Proposed § 686.43(a)(6) describes how these grant recipients may request reconsideration of the conversion of their TEACH Grants to loans.
We are proposing new §§ 686.43(a)(7) and (8) to provide greater transparency related to the process by which a TEACH Grant recipient may request reconsideration of the conversion of a TEACH Grant to a loan if the recipient believes that the grant was converted in error, and the Secretary's actions after making a determination on a grant recipient's reconsideration request. Although a process currently exists for grant recipients to request reconversion of a TEACH Grant to a loan, that process is not reflected in the current regulations.
The Department originally proposed that if a TEACH Grant recipient who requests reconsideration of the conversion of a TEACH Grant to a loan demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the grant was converted in error, the Secretary would reconvert the loan to a TEACH Grant, notify the recipient of the reconversion to a grant, and explain that the grant recipient is once again responsible for meeting all requirements of the service obligation. During the negotiated rulemaking sessions, some non-federal negotiators expressed concerns that the Department's proposal was too limited in scope and would not provide adequate relief to grant recipients whose grants were converted to loans in error. In particular, these non-federal negotiators believed it was important to specify in the regulations that any academic years of qualifying teaching service performed by the grant recipient while their grant was improperly in loan status due to an erroneous conversion would be applied toward satisfaction of the service obligation requirement, and that the period during which the grant was improperly in loan status would not count against the eight-year service obligation period.
The non-federal negotiators believed that the additional financial burden resulting from the conversion of a grant recipient's TEACH Grants to loans could lead a grant recipient to leave his or her teaching position at a low-income school and obtain a higher paying job while awaiting a decision from the Secretary on the request for reconsideration of the conversion. The non-federal negotiators felt strongly that if the Secretary determines that a grant recipient's TEACH Grant was converted to a loan in error, upon the reconversion of the loan to a grant the recipient should receive credit toward satisfaction of the service obligation for any full academic years of qualifying teaching service that he or she completed during the period between the request for reconsideration and the determination that the grant was converted to a loan in error, and any other portion of that period when the grant was improperly in loan status should not be counted against the remaining portion of the grant recipient's eight-year service obligation period once the loan has been changed back to a grant. To address these concerns, the Department agreed to add proposed §§ 686.43(a)(7)(i)(A) and (B).
As an example to illustrate how the provisions in proposed §§ 686.43(a)(7)(i)(A) and (B) would be applied, consider the case of a grant recipient who completed one academic year of qualifying teaching service during the first year of the eight-year service obligation, then had his or her TEACH Grants converted to a loan and submitted a request for reconsideration based on the belief that the grants were converted in error. After submitting the reconsideration request, the grant recipient continued to perform qualifying teaching service for an additional academic year while the Secretary evaluated the recipient's request. The Secretary determines that the grants converted to a loan in error and reconverts the loans to TEACH Grants. We would apply the year of qualifying teaching that the recipient completed while the grants were in loan status toward the recipient's four-year service obligation requirement, and the recipient would have six years remaining to complete the remaining two years of the service obligation. In contrast, if the recipient did not complete any additional academic years of qualifying teaching following the conversion, and one year elapsed from the time the recipient submitted a reconsideration request until the Secretary made a determination that the grants had been converted in error, the recipient would then have seven years remaining to complete the required three additional years of teaching to fully satisfy the service obligation. We would exclude the one-year period when the grants were incorrectly in loan status from the eight-year service obligation period.
The non-federal negotiators also urged the Department to specify in the regulations that if the Secretary determines that a recipient's TEACH Grants were converted to a loan in error, the grant recipient would receive credit
Non-federal negotiators were also concerned that grant recipients who have their TEACH Grants erroneously converted to a loan may not be able to handle the increased student loan debt, and this could lead to delinquency or default. Accordingly, the non-federal negotiators asked the Department to specify in the regulations that we would delete any derogatory information reported to consumer reporting agencies in connection with the loan, and that upon a request from the recipient, the Secretary would provide a statement explaining the conversion error that the recipient could provide to creditors. The Department agreed with the non-federal negotiators and has included this provision in proposed § 686.43(a)(7)(iv).
We are proposing new § 686.43(a)(9) to clarify in the regulations that a grant recipient is obligated to meet all requirements of the service obligation even if the recipient does not receive the notices from the Secretary described in proposed § 686.43(a)(2). If a recipient does not receive the notices because he or she failed to provide updated contact information to the Secretary or for any other reason, this would not provide a basis for the recipient to assert that he or she is no longer responsible for satisfying the terms and conditions of the agreement to serve or repay that the recipient signed.
In § 686.43(c)(2), which currently provides that a grant recipient whose TEACH Grant is converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan is eligible for all of the benefits of the Direct Loan Program, including an in-school deferment, we are proposing to remove the words “including an in-school deferment” because it is sufficient to simply state that the recipient would be eligible for all Direct Loan Program benefits. There is no reason to specifically refer to the in-school deferment benefit.
Finally, for consistency with proposed changes in other sections of the proposed regulations, we are proposing to amend § 686.43(d) to provide that a TEACH Grant that has been converted to a loan cannot be changed back to a grant unless the Secretary determines that the grant was converted to a loan in error. The main negotiating committee agreed with these proposals.
(1) If a grant recipient completed one or more academic years of qualifying teaching service during the period the grant was wrongly in loan status, under proposed § 686.43(a)(7)(i)(A) the Secretary will credit the recipient for those years of service and not include the period the grant was wrongly in loan status in the eight-year service period during which the grant recipient must complete their service obligation. In addition to not including this period, if the grant recipient does not have sufficient time to complete such service within the eight-year period once the error is corrected, should the Secretary further extend the period in which the recipient has to complete the required service by an additional period equal to 8 years minus the number of years of qualified teaching service completed by the recipient?
(2) If a grant recipient did not complete one or more academic years of qualifying teaching service during the period the grant was wrongly in loan status, under proposed § 686.43(a)(7)(i)(B) the Secretary will not include the period the grant was wrongly in loan status in the eight-year service period during which the grant recipient must complete their service obligation. In addition to not including this period, if the grant recipient does not have sufficient time to complete such service within the eight-year period once the error is corrected, should the Secretary further extend the period in which the recipient has to complete the required service by an additional period equal to 8 years minus the number of years of qualified teaching service completed by the recipient?
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
Under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f)(1), the changes proposed in this regulatory action would materially alter the rights and obligations of recipients of Federal financial assistance under title IV of the HEA. Therefore, the Secretary certifies that this is a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB. Also, under Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential Memorandum “Plain Language in Government Writing,” the Secretary invites comment on how easy these regulations are to understand in the
Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two deregulatory actions. For FY 2019, any new incremental costs associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. The proposed regulations are a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. However, Executive Order 13771 does not apply to “transfer rules” that cause only income transfers between taxpayers and program beneficiaries. Because the portion of the regulation relating to the TEACH Grant Program is a transfer rule and because the remaining proposed regulatory changes impose minimal estimated costs of approximately $1.27 million in annualized net PRA costs at a 7 percent discount rate, discounted to a 2016 equivalent, over a perpetual time horizon, the requirement to offset new regulations in Executive Order 13771 does not apply. Accordingly, the Department is not required to identify two deregulatory actions under Executive Order 13771. Also, one of the benefits of this regulatory action is to help improve the process of certification by TEACH grantees and provide less restrictive qualification criteria by expanding the pool of schools under
We have also reviewed these proposed regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing these proposed regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that these regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, or Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In this regulatory impact analysis, we discuss the need for regulatory action, the potential costs and benefits, assumptions, limitations, and data sources, as well as regulatory alternatives we considered.
In 2007, Congress established the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program to increase the number of teachers in high-need fields in low-income schools. In exchange for receiving a TEACH Grant, recipients agree to teach in a high-need field such as reading, mathematics, or science, at a low-income school, for at least four years in an eight-year period and annually certify that they intend to meet this requirement. If a recipient does not meet the grant requirements or the annual certification requirements, the grant converts to a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan with interest charged from the date of each TEACH Grant disbursement.
A 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that around 36,000 out of more than 112,000 TEACH Grant recipients had not fulfilled TEACH Grant requirements and had their grants converted to loans (GAO, 2015).
A 2018 study conducted for the Department by the American Institutes for Research (U.S. Department of Education, 2018)
To address the concerns raised by these studies, we are proposing amendments that are intended to facilitate the process of documenting satisfaction of the service obligation requirements and ensure that recipients who fulfill their service obligation receive credit for it. This should also help to reduce the percentage of TEACH Grants that get converted to Direct Unsubsidized Loans and help promote the TEACH Grant Program's desired outcomes.
The proposed regulations also speak to issues concerning eligibility and distribution of financial aid to various faith-based entities. In response to the Supreme Court's decision in
The Department has analyzed the costs and benefits of complying with these proposed regulations and our estimates are a function of the uncertainty and limitations of relevant data. As discussed below, we believe that these proposed regulations will result in modest costs to the Federal government and will benefit recipients of support under the affected programs.
With respect to the TEACH Grant Program, we anticipate that by simplifying and clarifying certification procedures and providing greater
The regulations we propose related to other programs would also reduce the potential for discrimination against students and faith-based institutions due to their religious beliefs in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Regarding changes to the TEACH Grant Program, the proposed changes would potentially improve the reporting and documentation process for grant recipients and could lead to a reduction in the number of grant-to-loan conversions. According to Department data, the percentage of TEACH Grant recipients with one or more years of qualified teaching service after six or more years following their last TEACH award has been increasing steadily. The improvements to the process for recipients to document their teaching service included in these proposed regulations should help prevent unintended grant to loan conversions.
For FY 2020, The Department estimates that approximately 32,000 recipients will receive TEACH Grants with a value of $97.2 million in grants, and an average award of slightly over $3,000. To provide some background, over the past five years from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2018, the Department has provided a total of $449.3 million in TEACH grant funding to 159,317 students. Based on program data, the Department estimates that 66 percent of students receiving TEACH Grants will fail to complete their required service commitment and will have their grants converted to Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loans.
Using a sensitivity analysis of grant-to-loan conversions, we estimate that for the 2020 cohort, a one percent reduction in the grant-to-loan conversion would result in a cost to the Federal Government of $767,663, since each grant that is not converted to a loan where the student is obligated to pay it back remains a grant. The Department recognizes the percentage change that the proposed regulations would have on the percentage of conversions is uncertain. The Department intends that these regulatory changes should reduce the loan conversion rate. However, students fail to meet the TEACH Grant service requirements for many reasons, including teaching in positions that do not qualify or changing to non-teaching employment. For instance, the PPSS/AIR study cited earlier reported that approximately 39 percent of TEACH recipients whose grants had been converted to loans reported teaching in a position that did not qualify for the TEACH program, 33 percent reported not teaching or not completing the teaching certificate, 32 percent stated they did not understand the service requirements, and about 44 percent o reported factors related to the annual certification process as influencing them to not complete the program requirements. Since respondents could select more than one response category, the total percentage does not add to 100 percent. Of those that indicated the annual certification process was a problem, the distribution revealed that about 19 percent said they did not know about the annual certification process; 13 percent reported not certifying because of challenges to the certification process; 9 percent reported not certifying because they forgot, and about 2 percent listed other reasons.
While predicting how recipients might change behavior due to the proposed regulations is speculative, the PPSS/AIR responses give us reason to assume that there could be improvement based on the recipients who cited the certification process as a factor in their conversion. Such improvement would logically lead to some reduction in the grant-to-loan conversion rate.
Given an estimated grant-to-loan conversion rate, it is possible to identify a series of costs for a series of percentage reductions that give context to the potential impact that the proposed regulations would have.
The above table suggests that if the grant-to-loan conversion rate were reduced from the estimated 66 percent to 61 percent—a five percentage point reduction—the Federal Government would incur additional costs of about $3.8 million. And, if the projected 66 percent rate were reduced by 10 percentage points to 56 percent, there would be a cost of about $7.7 million based on the 2020 cohort. However, this cost to the Federal Government would also result in a benefit to student TEACH Grant recipients who would not have to repay their TEACH Grants that were converted to loans. Note that these are five percentage percentage-point intervals, and not percentage decreases of the current rate.
The current regulations do not permit a TEACH Grant recipient to satisfy the service obligation by teaching in a geographic region of a State that has been designated in the Nationwide List as having a shortage of teachers, or by teaching at a particular grade level not associated with a high-need field that has been designated in the Nationwide List as having a shortage of teachers. Instead, the recipient must teach in a high-need field listed in the Nationwide List.
The proposed regulations would remove this restriction. For example, under the proposed regulations, a grant recipient could satisfy the service obligation by serving as a full-time highly qualified general elementary school or secondary school teacher at a low-income school in a State that has reported a general shortage of elementary or secondary teachers in the Nationwide List. This is not allowed under the current regulations. Therefore, the proposed regulations would allow grant recipients who are unable to find qualifying teaching jobs in a high-need field to meet the service obligation by teaching at a low-income school located in a geographic teacher shortage area or at a grade level where there is a shortage of teachers. This could facilitate increased opportunities for TEACH recipients toward meeting the service obligation and perhaps impact the conversion rate to loans. But, it would be speculative to assume any specific amount of change in the conversion rate attributable to potential expanded teaching opportunities. Also, the proposed change might result in a number of grant recipients simply transferring from one low-income school to another low-income school to accept a teaching position that might previously have not been eligible.
Based on available data from the Department's Teacher Shortage Area listing,
Overall, the proposed regulations have the potential to improve some aspects of the certification process and opportunities for recipients to meet their service requirements, which would benefit recipients, in keeping with the original goal of the program. As several provisions are expected to decrease the grant-to-loan conversion rate and result in additional cost to the Federal Government, we have estimated a net budget impact of that change.
In addition to the 3 percent decrease attributed to the changes to the high needs field requirements, we assume that the additional changes to the TEACH Grant program described in this preamble will decrease grant-to-loan conversions. We expect this effect will be lower for existing cohorts as improved counseling is more applicable to future participants and participants who took out TEACH Grants several years ago may be established in jobs that may not qualify or may have moved on from the profession, possibly limiting the ways those with older TEACH grants may respond to the proposed regulations. As a result, we applied the decreases shown in Table [2] to the grant-to-loan conversion rate to the President's Budget 2020 baseline. For past cohorts, the changes are applied only to future years of activity.
The estimated net budget impact is a cost of $119.98 million, including a modification to existing cohorts of $15.8 million and a cost for cohorts 2020 to 2029 of $104.2 million. We welcome comments on the estimated effects of the proposed regulations and will consider any information received in evaluating the final regulations.
A number of the proposed changes to the regulations relate to the eligibility of certain entities and recipients to participate in the title IV programs. The proposed regulations remove language prohibiting borrowers with Perkins loans made before July 1, 1993 and National Defense Student Loans (NDSL) made between October 1, 1980 and July 1, 1993 from obtaining deferments during periods of otherwise eligible full-time volunteer work that includes providing religious instruction, conducting religious services, proselytizing, or engaging in fundraising to support religious activities. The small group of borrowers expected to benefit from these changes and the heavy discounting effect that would apply to any deferment costs on such old loans, we do not estimate any budget impact from these changes.
The proposed regulations would remove current provisions that state that a member of a religious order pursuing a course of study in an institution of higher education has no financial need for purposes of the Pell Grant Program, Federal Perkins Loan Program, FWSP, FSEOG, FFEL Program, or the Direct Loan Program.
Despite this proposed change, the additional eligibility for student aid for a very small group of participants in a given religious order would not, in our estimation, result in any additional significant financial aid costs to the government. We have little firm data on the number of members in religious orders subject to the proposed changes who would actually choose to accept the financial aid for which they are eligible. For instance, the Franciscans are perhaps the largest and most well-known mendicant religious order, which means the priests take a vow of poverty. According to a 2013 reference,
The proposed regulatory changes would also affect PSLF. Under the proposed regulations, certain institutions that are tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that are religious organizations would be considered public service eligible employers for purposes of PSLF. However, the proposed regulations would provide that, while working for such an employer, no time spent by a borrower involving religious instruction, worship services, or proselytizing could be used toward meeting the full-time requirement stipulated for PSLF.
This consensus language actually codifies existing program practice that makes religious organizations eligible to be PSLF employers, but prohibits time spent on specific religious duties from counting toward the full-time PSLF requirement. Therefore, due to operational practice since program inception and including baseline assumptions, the Department has already been implementing the policy proposed in the NPRM. As a result, the proposed changes would “catch up” the regulations with the program as it is currently being executed and simply codify the current operational process.
In fact, the application form for PSLF (OMB No. 1845-0110) specifically states that a qualifying employer includes a “not-for-profit organization that is tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code” but makes no exclusion for religious purposes. The application also makes it clear that in performing job duties toward the full-time requirement, a borrower's qualifying employment at a 501(c)(3) organization or a not-for-profit organization does not include time spent participating in religious instruction, worship services, or any form of proselytizing. We do not estimate any significant increase in PSLF costs, given that the program has already been operating consistently with the proposed requirements.
The proposed changes to the GEAR UP program regulations would clarify that providers of GEAR UP services to students enrolled in private schools must be contracted independently of the private schools and would allow pervasively sectarian institutions of higher education to serve as fiscal agents for GEAR UP grants. In general, the Department does not estimate costs associated with changes to regulations governing competitive grant programs as participation in such programs is voluntary. However, it is possible that certain changes in the regulatory framework governing a competitive grant program could produce transfers in program benefits among entities or recipients of services.
Regarding the provision requiring providers of services to students enrolled in private schools to be independent of the school, the Department first assessed the extent to which GEAR UP services are currently provided to students enrolled in such schools. During the most recent reporting period, GEAR UP grantees reported serving students in 4,033 schools. Of those schools, the Department was only able to identify five private schools in which students received GEAR UP services. In total, private schools represented only 0.1 percent of schools served by the program and, even among the grantees serving such schools, private schools represented 0.9 percent of the total schools they served. As such, we do not believe that the proposed requirement relating to the employment relationship between individuals providing services in such schools and the schools themselves is likely to have a large impact on the administration of the program.
Regarding who may serve as a fiscal agent for a GEAR UP Grant, as noted above, the proposed regulations would allow pervasively sectarian institutions of higher education to serve in such a capacity. However, nothing in the current GEAR UP regulations precludes a pervasively sectarian institution of higher education from being a member of a GEAR UP partnership. As such, pervasively sectarian institutions can currently participate in and provide services under a GEAR UP grant. The Department does not have readily available data to identify all members of GEAR UP partnerships and whether they are pervasively sectarian. With such information, the Department could more easily quantify the potential number of partnerships affected by the change. However, even without such information, given that pervasively sectarian institutions are already eligible members of partnerships, we do not believe the change to allow them to serve as fiscal agents would dramatically change the makeup of the GEAR UP applicant pool. Any pervasively sectarian institution that currently wishes to participate in the GEAR UP program is able to do so and this change would only result in a shift in who has primary fiscal liability for the grant.
With respect to the TEACH Grant program, we considered not including provisions related to the current reconsideration process in the proposed regulations, maintaining the current counseling requirements without adding a separate conversion counseling requirement, maintaining instead of expanding the current regulations related to qualifying teacher shortage areas for fulfilling the service obligation, and not expanding allowable suspensions beyond those that are currently available. For the faith-based provisions, we considered not making the proposed changes and leaving the current regulatory language in place as written.
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
• Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly stated?
• Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?
• Does the format of the proposed regulations (use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?
• Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” is preceded by the symbol “§ ” and a numbered heading; for example, § 106.9 Dissemination of policy.)
• Could the description of the proposed regulations in the
• What else could we do to make the proposed regulations easier to understand?
To send any comments that concern how the Department could make these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions in the
The Secretary certifies that the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In fact, the primary entities who are affected by the proposed regulations are individual students, not organizations, businesses, or governmental units. This holds true for the faith-based component of the NPRM that addresses individuals participating in religious orders, or student borrowers applying for PSLF. Similarly, the proposed changes to the TEACH Grant Program regulations primarily affect students who are interested in teaching and apply for a TEACH grant.
Of the entities that would be affected by the proposed regulations, many institutions, especially religiously oriented schools, would be considered small. The Department recently proposed a size classification based on enrollment using IPEDS data that established the percentage of institutions in various higher education
The proposed regulations would affect students who belong to religious orders and those students most likely attend institutions with a religious mission. In general, we believe religious institutions are more likely to be small institutions. However, the proposed regulations do not affect the title IV eligibility of such institutions. Indeed, even schools that are controlled by various religious organizations and do not adhere to certain title IX civil rights provisions can still participate in title IV financial aid programs if they receive a waiver from parts of title IX that conflict with the school's religious doctrine.
According to the Department's Office of Civil Rights, since 1976 there have been 277 religious institutions of higher education that have received a religious exemption from title IX civil rights laws due to certain title IX provisions that conflict with the school's religious beliefs. Most of those schools maintain eligibility for title IV funding while holding a partial exemption from title IX. In some cases, there are religious-based schools who on their own choose not to participate at all in title IX or title IV, but the proposed regulations would not impact that limited number of schools.
We do not expect that the proposed regulations would have a significant economic impact on small entities. Nothing in the proposed regulations would compel institutions, small or not, to engage in substantive changes to their programs. Therefore, there is no estimated associated institutional burden.
Even if the affected institutions were considered small entities, the proposed regulations are designed to permit them to participate in title IV programs without jeopardizing their religious mission. Nothing in the proposed regulations would require institutions to expand their enrollment, take on additional students, or to participate in title IV aid programs, but the proposed regulations would give them that opportunity.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: The public understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.
Part 686 contains information collection requirements. Under the PRA the Department has submitted a copy of these sections to OMB for its review.
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
In the final regulations we will display the control numbers assigned by OMB to any collection requirements proposed in this NPRM and adopted in the final regulations.
We estimate the total burden of 17,486 hours (52,989 × .33 hours) under OMB Control Number 1845-NEW1.
During the 2018 calendar year, Department records indicate we received documentation supporting suspension of 589 grantees for enrollment to complete licensure requirements. We estimate that to meet the requirements in proposed § 686.41(a)(1)(ii), each respondent would need 20 minutes (.33 hours) to complete the certification form. We estimate the total burden of 194 hours (589 × .33 hours).
During the 2018 calendar year, Department records indicate we received documentation supporting suspension of 334 grantees for qualifying leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. We estimate that to meet the requirements in proposed § 686.41(a)(1)(iii), each respondent would need 20 minutes (.33 hours) to complete the certification form. We estimate the total burden of 110 hours (334 × .33 hours).
During the 2018 calendar year, Department records indicate we received documentation supporting suspension of 24 grantees for call to military service. We estimate that to meet the requirements in proposed § 686.41(a)(1)(iv), each respondent would need 20 minutes (.33 hours) to complete the certification form. We estimate the total burden of 8 hours (24 × .33 hours).
We anticipate that we would receive documentation supporting suspension of 25 grantees based on military orders for the grantee's spouse. We estimate that to meet the requirements in proposed § 686.41(a)(1)(v), each respondent would need 20 minutes (.33 hours) to complete the certification form. We estimate the total burden of 8 hours (25 × .33 hours).
We anticipate that we would receive documentation supporting suspension of 500 grantees based on residing or being employed in a federally declared major disaster area. We estimate that to meet the requirements in proposed § 686.41(a)(1)(vi), each respondent would need 20 minutes (.33 hours) to complete the certification form. We estimate the total burden of 165 hours (500 × .33 hours).
We estimate the total burden of 485 hours (1,472 × .33 hours) under OMB Control Number 1845-NEW1.
We estimate the total burden of 3 hours (10 × .33 hours) under OMB Control Number 1845-NEW1.
There would be burden on those recipients who are notified that their TEACH Grant will be converted to a loan if the recipient does not submit required documentation to show that they are satisfying the service obligation. Based on the Department's data, during calendar year 2018 there were a total of 10,591 TEACH Grant recipients whose grants were converted to loans based on the recipients' voluntary request, or because the recipient was out of time to perform the service obligation or because the recipient did not provide evidence of meeting the service obligation as required under § 686.43(a)(4). We estimate that grant recipients would require 10 minutes (.17 hours) to review the information in the notice. We estimate the total burden of 1,800 burden hours (10,591 × .17 hours).
Additionally, there would be burden on any TEACH Grant recipient whose grant was involuntarily converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan to request reconsideration from the Secretary. Based on the Department's data, during calendar year 2018 there were 282 correctable conversions of TEACH Grants into loans. We estimate that a recipient would require 15 minutes (.25 hours) to gather documentation to present to the Secretary and make such a request as required under § 686.43(a)(5). We estimate a total burden of 71 burden hours (282 × .25 hours).
We estimate a total burden of 13,131 burden hours under OMB Control Number 1845-NEW2.
The estimated cost to the recipients is $1,665,679, based on the $29.48 per hour averaged for 2018 elementary, middle school and high school teacher salaries from the 2019 Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Handbook.
The total burden hours and change in burden hours associated with each OMB control number affected by the proposed regulations follows:
These programs are not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
In accordance with section 411 of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the Secretary particularly requests comments on whether the proposed regulations would require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Loan programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping, Student aid.
Colleges and universities, Employment, Grant programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid.
Grant programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid.
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities, Loan programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid, Vocational education.
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities, Loan programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid, Vocational education.
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities, Education, Elementary and secondary education, Grant programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid.
Colleges and universities, Education of disadvantaged, Grant programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid.
Colleges and universities, Grant programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid.
Colleges and universities, Elementary and secondary education, Grant programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of Education proposes to amend parts 674, 675, 676, 682, 685, 686, 690, 692, and 694 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
20 U.S.C. 1070g, 1087aa-1087hh; Pub. L. 111-256, 124 Stat. 2643; unless otherwise noted.
The revision reads as follows:
(c) Has financial need as determined in accordance with part F of title IV of the HEA.
(c) * * *
(4) A full-time volunteer in service which the Secretary has determined is comparable to service in the Peace Corps or under the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 (ACTION programs). The Secretary considers that a borrower is providing comparable service if he or she satisfies the following four criteria:
(i) The borrower serves in an organization that is exempt from taxation under the provisions of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
(ii) The borrower provides service to low-income persons and their communities to assist them in eliminating poverty and poverty-related human, social, and environmental conditions.
(iii) The borrower does not receive compensation that exceeds the rate prescribed under section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the Federal minimum wage), except that the tax-exempt organization may provide health, retirement, and other fringe benefits to the volunteer that are substantially equivalent to the benefits offered to other employees of the organization.
(iv) The borrower has agreed to serve on a full-time basis for a term of at least one year.
20 U.S.C. 1070g, 1087, 1094; 42 U.S.C. 2751-2756b; unless otherwise noted.
(c) Has financial need as determined in accordance with part F of title IV of the HEA.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Involve the construction, operation, or maintenance of so much of any facility as is used or is to be used for sectarian instruction or as a place for religious worship.
20 U.S.C. 1070b-1070b-3, unless otherwise noted.
(c) Has financial need as determined in accordance with part F of title IV of the HEA.
20 U.S.C. 1071-1087-4, unless otherwise noted.
(m) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Does not include time spent participating in religious instruction, worship services, or any form of proselytizing; and
20 U.S.C 1070g, 1087a,
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) A Federal, State, local, or Tribal government organization, agency, or entity;
(2) A public child or family service agency;
(3) A non-profit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code;
(4) A Tribal college or university; or
(5)(i) A private organization that provides the following public services: Emergency management, military service, public safety, law enforcement, public interest law services, early childhood education (including licensed or regulated child care, Head Start, and State funded pre-kindergarten), public service for individuals with disabilities and the elderly, public health (including nurses, nurse practitioners, nurses in a clinical setting, and full-time professionals engaged in health care practitioner occupations and health care support occupations, as such terms are defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics), public education, public library services, school library or other school-based services; and
(ii) Is not a business organized for profit, a labor union, or a partisan political organization.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Is employed full-time by a public service organization or serving in a full-time AmeriCorps or Peace Corps position—
(A) When the borrower makes the 120 monthly payments described under paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section;
(B) At the time of application for loan forgiveness; and
(C) At the time the remaining principal and accrued interest are forgiven.
(4) Time spent participating in religious instruction, worship services, or any form of proselytizing while employed by a non-profit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code is not included toward meeting the full-time requirement under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section.
20 U.S.C. 1070g,
The TEACH Grant program awards grants to students who intend to teach, to help meet the cost of their postsecondary education. In exchange for the grant, the student must agree to serve as a full-time teacher in a high-need field in a school serving low-income students, or as a full-time teacher in a high-need field for an educational service agency serving low-income students, for at least four academic years within eight years of ceasing enrollment at the institution where the student received the grant or, in the case of a student who receives a TEACH Grant at one institution and subsequently transfers to another institution and enrolls in another TEACH Grant-eligible program, within eight years of ceasing enrollment at the other institution. The eight-year period for completing the required four years of teaching does not include periods of suspension in accordance with § 686.41. If the student does not satisfy the service obligation, the amounts of the TEACH Grants received are treated as a Direct Unsubsidized Loan and must be repaid with interest charged from the date of each TEACH Grant disbursement. A TEACH Grant that has been converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan can be reconverted to a grant only in accordance with § 686.43.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(A) The teacher has obtained full State certification as a teacher (including certification obtained through alternative routes to certification) or passed the State teacher licensing examination, and holds a license to teach in such State, except that when used with respect to any teacher teaching in a public charter school, the term means that the teacher meets the requirements set forth in the State's public charter school law; and
(B) The teacher has not had certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis.
(ii) When used with respect to—
(A) An elementary school teacher who is new to the profession, means that the teacher—
(
(
(B) A middle or secondary school teacher who is new to the profession, means that the teacher holds at least a bachelor's degree and has demonstrated a high level of competency in each of the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches by—
(
(
(
(A) Has met the applicable standard in paragraph (2) of this definition, which includes an option for a test; or
(B) Demonstrates competence in all the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches based on a highly objective uniform State standard of evaluation that—
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(iv)(A) When used with respect to any public, or other non-profit private, elementary or secondary school teacher who is exempt from State certification requirements means that the teacher is permitted to and does satisfy rigorous subject knowledge and skills tests by taking competency tests in the applicable grade levels and subject areas.
(B) For purposes of paragraph (iv)(A) of this definition, the competency tests taken by a private school teacher must be recognized by five or more States for the purpose of fulfilling the highly qualified teacher requirements as described in paragraphs (i) through (iii) of this definition, and the score achieved by the teacher on each test must equal or exceed the average passing score of those five States.
To receive a grant under this part, a student must—
(a) Complete and submit the Free application for Federal student aid (FAFSA) in accordance with the instructions in the FAFSA;
(b) Complete and sign an agreement to serve or repay in accordance with § 686.12; and
(c) Provide any additional information requested by the Secretary and the institution.
(a)
(b)
(1) Provides that, for each TEACH Grant-eligible program for which the student received TEACH Grant funds, the grant recipient must fulfill a service obligation by performing creditable teaching service by serving—
(i) As a full-time teacher for a total of not less than four elementary or secondary academic years within eight years after the date the recipient ceased to be enrolled at the institution where the recipient received the TEACH Grant, or in the case of a student who receives a TEACH Grant at one institution and subsequently transfers to another institution and enrolls in another TEACH Grant-eligible program, within eight years of ceasing enrollment at the other institution;
(ii) In a low-income school as defined in § 686.2(d) and subject to the requirements under § 686.40(a)(3);
(iii) As a highly qualified teacher as defined in § 686.2(d); and
(iv) In a high-need field in the majority of classes taught during each elementary and secondary academic year;
(2) Requires the grant recipient to submit, upon completion of each year of service, documentation of the service in the form of a certification by a chief administrative officer of the school;
(3) Explains that the eight-year period for completing the service obligation does not include periods of suspension in accordance with § 686.41;
(4)(i) Explains the conditions under which a TEACH Grant may be converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan, as described in § 686.43;
(ii) Explains that, if a TEACH Grant is converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan, the grant recipient must repay the loan in full, with interest charged from the date of each TEACH Grant disbursement; and
(iii) Explains that to avoid further accrual of interest as described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section, a grant recipient who decides not to teach in a qualified school or field, or who for any other reason no longer intends to satisfy the service obligation, may request that the Secretary convert his or her TEACH Grant to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan so that the grant recipient may begin repaying immediately, instead of waiting for the TEACH Grant to be converted to a loan under the condition described in § 686.43(a)(1)(ii); and
(5) Requires the grant recipient to comply with the terms, conditions, and other requirements consistent with §§ 686.40 through 686.43 that the Secretary determines to be necessary.
(c)
(2) Unless paragraph (c)(3) of this section applies—
(i) In the case of a TEACH Grant recipient who withdraws from an institution before completing a baccalaureate or post-baccalaureate program of study for which he or she received TEACH Grants, but later re-enrolls at the same institution or at a different institution in either the same baccalaureate or post-baccalaureate program or in a different TEACH Grant-eligible baccalaureate or post-baccalaureate program prior to the date that his or her TEACH Grants are converted to Direct Unsubsidized Loans under § 686.43(a)(1)(ii) and receives additional TEACH Grants or the Secretary otherwise confirms that the grant recipient has re-enrolled in a TEACH Grant-eligible program, the Secretary adjusts the starting date of the period for completing the service obligation to begin when the grant recipient ceases to be enrolled at the institution where he or she has re-enrolled; and
(ii) In the case of a TEACH Grant recipient who withdraws from an institution before completing a master's degree program of study for which he or she received TEACH Grants, but later re-enrolls at the same institution or at a different institution in either the same master's degree program or in a different TEACH Grant eligible master's degree program prior to the date that his or her TEACH Grants are converted to Direct Unsubsidized Loans under § 686.43(a)(1)(ii) and receives additional TEACH Grants or the Secretary otherwise confirms that the grant recipient has re-enrolled in a TEACH Grant-eligible program, the Secretary adjusts the starting date of the period for completing the service obligation to begin when the grant recipient ceases to be enrolled at the institution where he or she has re-enrolled.
(3) In the case of a TEACH Grant recipient covered under paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section who completed one or more complete academic years of creditable teaching service as described in § 686.12(b) during the period between the grant recipient's withdrawal and re-enrollment—
(i) The Secretary does not adjust the starting date of the period for completing the service obligation unless requested by the recipient;
(ii) The completed teaching service counts toward satisfaction of the grant recipient's service obligation under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section; and
(iii) If the grant recipient continues to perform creditable teaching service after re-enrolling in a TEACH Grant-eligible program, the grant recipient may receive credit toward satisfaction of the service obligation for any complete academic years of creditable teaching performed while the recipient is concurrently enrolled in the TEACH Grant-eligible program only if the recipient does not request and receive a temporary suspension of the period for completing the service obligation under § 686.41(a)(1)(i).
(d)
(1) For teaching service performed before July 1, 2010, at the time the grant recipient begins teaching in that field, even if that field subsequently loses its high-need designation for that State; or
(2) For teaching service performed on or after July 1, 2010—
(i) At the time the grant recipient begins teaching in that field, even if that field subsequently loses its high-need designation for that State; or
(ii) At the time the grant recipient signed the agreement to serve or repay or received the TEACH Grant, even if that field subsequently loses its high-need designation for that State before the grant recipient begins teaching in that field.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) The initial counseling must—
(i) Explain the terms and conditions of the TEACH Grant agreement to serve or repay as described in § 686.12;
(ii) Provide the grant recipient with information about how to identify low-income schools and documented high-need fields;
(iii) Inform the grant recipient that, for the teaching to count towards the recipient's service obligation, the high-need field in which he or she has prepared to teach must be—
(A) One of the six high-need fields listed in § 686.2; or
(B) A high-need field that is listed in the Nationwide List for the State in which the grant recipient teaches—
(
(
(iv) Inform the grant recipient of the opportunity to request a suspension of the eight-year period for completion of the agreement to serve or repay and the conditions under which a suspension may be granted in accordance with § 686.41;
(v) Explain to the grant recipient that conditions, such as conviction of a felony, could preclude the grant recipient from completing the service obligation;
(vi) Emphasize to the grant recipient that if the grant recipient fails or refuses to complete the service obligation contained in the agreement to serve or repay or any other condition of the agreement to serve or repay—
(A) The TEACH Grant must be repaid as a Direct Unsubsidized Loan; and
(B) The grant recipient will be obligated to repay the full amount of each grant and the accrued interest from each disbursement date;
(vii) Explain the circumstances, as described in § 686.43, under which a TEACH Grant will be converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan;
(viii) Explain that—
(A) To avoid further accrual of interest as described in § 686.12(b)(4)(ii), a grant recipient who decides not to teach in a qualified school or field, or who for any other reason no longer intends to satisfy the service obligation, may request that the Secretary convert his or her TEACH Grant to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan that the grant recipient may begin repaying immediately, instead of waiting for the TEACH Grant to be converted to a loan under the condition described in § 686.43(a)(1)(ii); and
(B) If the grant recipient requests that a TEACH Grant be converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan in accordance with § 686.43(a)(1)(i), the conversion of the TEACH Grant to a loan cannot be reversed;
(ix) Emphasize that, once a TEACH Grant is converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan, it may be reconverted to a grant only if—
(A) The Secretary determines that the grant has been converted to a loan in error; or
(B) In the case of a grant recipient whose TEACH Grant was converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan in accordance with § 686.43(a)(1)(ii), within one year of the conversion date the grant recipient provides documentation showing that he or she is satisfying the service obligation within the eight-year service obligation period;
(x) Review for the grant recipient information on the availability of the Department's Student Loan Ombudsman's office;
(xi) Describe the likely consequences of loan default, including adverse credit reports, garnishment of wages, Federal offset, and litigation; and
(xii) Inform the grant recipient of sample monthly repayment amounts based on a range of student loan indebtedness.
(b) * * *
(3) Subsequent counseling must—
(i) Review the terms and conditions of the TEACH Grant agreement to serve or repay as described in § 686.12;
(ii) Emphasize to the grant recipient that if the grant recipient fails or refuses to complete the service obligation contained in the agreement to serve or repay or any other condition of the agreement to serve or repay—
(A) The TEACH Grant must be repaid as a Direct Unsubsidized Loan; and
(B) The grant recipient will be obligated to repay the full amount of the grant and the accrued interest from the disbursement date;
(iii) Explain the circumstances, as described in § 686.43, under which a TEACH Grant will be converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan;
(iv) Explain that—
(A) To avoid further accrual of interest as described in § 686.12(b)(4)(ii), a grant recipient who decides not to teach in a qualified school or field, or who for any other reason no longer intends to satisfy the service obligation, may request that the Secretary convert his or her TEACH Grant to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan that the grant recipient may begin repaying immediately, instead of waiting for the TEACH Grant to be converted to a loan under the condition described in § 686.43(a)(1)(ii); and
(B) If the grant recipient requests that a TEACH Grant be converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan in accordance with § 686.43(a)(1)(i), the conversion of the TEACH Grant to a loan cannot be reversed;
(v) Emphasize that, once a TEACH Grant is converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan, it may be reconverted to a grant only if--
(A) The Secretary determines that the grant has been converted to a loan in error; or
(B) In the case of a grant recipient whose TEACH Grant was converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan in accordance with § 686.43(a)(1)(ii), within one year of the conversion date the grant recipient provides documentation showing that he or she is satisfying the service obligation within the eight-year service obligation period; and
(vi) Review for the grant recipient information on the availability of the Department's Student Loan Ombudsman's office.
(c) * * *
(4) The exit counseling must—
(i) Review the terms and conditions of the TEACH Grant agreement to serve or repay as described in § 686.12 and emphasize to the grant recipient that the four-year service obligation must be
(ii) Explain the treatment of a grant recipient who withdraws from and then reenrolls in a TEACH Grant-eligible program at a TEACH Grant eligible institution as described in § 686.12(c);
(iii) Inform the grant recipient of the opportunity to request a suspension of the eight-year period for completion of the service obligation and the conditions under which a suspension may be granted in accordance with § 686.41;
(iv) Provide the grant recipient with information about how to identify low-income schools and documented high-need fields;
(v) Inform the grant recipient that, for the teaching to count towards the recipient's service obligation, the high-need field in which he or she has prepared to teach must be—
(A) One of the six high-need fields listed in § 686.2; or
(B) A high-need field that is listed in the Nationwide List for the State in which the grant recipient teaches—
(
(
(vi) Emphasize to the grant recipient that if the grant recipient fails or refuses to complete the service obligation contained in the agreement to serve or repay or fails to meet any other condition of the agreement to serve or repay—
(A) The TEACH Grant must be repaid as a Direct Unsubsidized Loan; and
(B) The grant recipient will be obligated to repay the full amount of each grant and the accrued interest from each disbursement date;
(vii) Explain to the grant recipient that the Secretary will, at least annually during the service obligation period, send the recipient the notice described in § 686.43(a)(2);
(viii) Explain the circumstances, as described in § 686.43, under which a TEACH Grant will be converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan;
(ix) Explain that—
(A) To avoid further accrual of interest as described in § 686.12(b)(4)(ii), a grant recipient who decides not to teach in a qualified school or field, or who for any other reason no longer intends to satisfy the service obligation, may request that the Secretary convert his or her TEACH Grant to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan that the grant recipient may begin repaying immediately, instead of waiting for the TEACH Grant to be converted to a loan under the condition described in § 686.43(a)(1)(ii); and
(B) If the grant recipient requests that the TEACH Grant be converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan in accordance with § 686.43(a)(1)(i), the conversion of the TEACH Grant to a loan cannot be reversed;
(x) Emphasize that once a TEACH Grant is converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan it may be reconverted to a grant only if—
(A) The Secretary determines that the grant was converted to a loan in error; or
(B) In the case of a grant recipient whose TEACH Grant was converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan in accordance with § 686.43(a)(1)(ii), within one year of the conversion date the grant recipient provides documentation showing that he or she is satisfying the service obligation within the eight-year service obligation period; and
(xi) Explain to the grant recipient how to contact the Secretary.
(5) If exit counseling is conducted through interactive electronic means, an institution must take reasonable steps to ensure that each grant recipient receives the counseling materials and participates in and completes the exit counseling.
(e)
(2) The conversion counseling—
(i) Informs the borrower of the average anticipated monthly repayment amount based on the borrower's indebtedness;
(ii) Reviews for the borrower available repayment plan options, including standard, graduated, extended, income-contingent, and income-based repayment plans, including a description of the different features of each plan and the difference in interest paid and total payments under each plan;
(iii) Explains to the borrower the options to prepay each loan, to pay each loan on a shorter schedule, and to change repayment plans;
(iv) Provides information on the effects of loan consolidation including, at a minimum—
(A) The effects of consolidation on total interest to be paid, and length of repayment;
(B) The effects of consolidation on a borrower's underlying loan benefits, including grace periods, loan forgiveness, cancellation, and deferment opportunities; and
(C) The options of the borrower to prepay the loan and to change repayment plans;
(v) Includes debt-management strategies that are designed to facilitate repayment;
(vi) Explains to the borrower the availability of Public Service Loan Forgiveness and teacher loan forgiveness;
(vii) Explains how the borrower may request reconsideration of the conversion of the TEACH Grant to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan if the borrower believes that the grant was converted to a loan in error;
(viii) Describes the likely consequences of default, including adverse credit reports, delinquent debt collection procedures under Federal law, and litigation;
(ix) Informs the borrower of the grace period as described in § 686.43(c);
(x) Provides—
(A) A general description of the terms and conditions under which a borrower may obtain full or partial forgiveness or discharge of the loan (including under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program), defer repayment of the loan, or be granted a forbearance on repayment of the loan; and
(B) A copy, either in print or by electronic means, of the information the Secretary makes available pursuant to section 485(d) of the HEA;
(xi) Requires the borrower to provide current information concerning name, address, Social Security number, and driver's license number and State of issuance, as well as the borrower's permanent address;
(xii) Reviews for the borrower information on the availability of the Student Loan Ombudsman's office;
(xiii) Informs the borrower of the availability of title IV loan information in the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) and how NSLDS can be used to obtain title IV loan status information;
(xiv) Provides a general description of the types of tax benefits that may be available to borrowers; and
(xv) Informs the borrower of the amount of interest that has accrued on the converted TEACH Grants and explains that any unpaid interest will be
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) If a grant recipient is performing full-time teaching service in accordance with the agreement to serve or repay, or agreements to serve or repay if more than one agreement exists, the grant recipient must, upon completion of each of the four required elementary or secondary academic years of teaching service, provide to the Secretary documentation of that teaching service on a form approved by the Secretary and certified by the chief administrative officer of the school or educational service agency in which the grant recipient is teaching. The documentation must show that the grant recipient—
(1) Taught full-time in a low-income school as a highly qualified teacher as defined in § 686.2(d); and
(2)(i) Taught a majority of classes during the period being certified in any of the high-need fields of mathematics, science, a foreign language, bilingual education, English language acquisition, special education, or as a reading specialist; or
(ii) Taught a majority of classes during the period being certified in another high-need field designated by that State and listed in the Nationwide List, in accordance with § 686.12(d).
(b) * * *
(2) A call or order to Federal or State active duty, or Active Service as a member of a Reserve Component of the Armed Forces named in 10 U.S.C. 10101, or service as a member of the National Guard on full-time National Guard duty, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(d)(5); or
(3) Residing in or being employed in a federally declared major disaster area as defined in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)).
(c)(1) A grant recipient who taught in more than one qualifying school or qualifying educational service agency during an elementary or secondary academic year and demonstrates that the combined teaching service was the equivalent of full-time, as supported by the certification of one or more of the chief administrative officers of the schools or educational service agencies involved, is considered to have completed one elementary or secondary academic year of qualifying teaching.
(2) If the school or educational service agency at which the grant recipient is employed meets the requirements of a low-income school in the first year of the grant recipient's four elementary or secondary academic years of teaching and the school or educational service agency fails to meet those requirements in subsequent years, those subsequent years of teaching qualify for purposes of satisfying the service obligation described in § 686.12(b).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Receiving State-required instruction or otherwise fulfilling requirements for licensure to teach in a State's elementary or secondary schools;
(iii) A condition that is a qualifying reason for leave under the FMLA;
(iv) A call to order to Federal or State active duty or Active Service as a member of a Reserve Component of the Armed Forces named in 10 U.S.C. 10101, or service as a member of the National Guard on full-time National Guard duty, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(d)(5);
(v) Military orders for the recipient's spouse for—
(A) Deployment with a military unit or as an individual in support of a call to Federal or State Active Duty, or Active Service; or
(B) A change of permanent duty station from a location in the continental United States to a location outside of the continental United States or from a location in a State to any location outside of that State; or
(vi) Residing in or being employed in a federally declared major disaster area as defined in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)).
(2) A grant recipient may receive a suspension described in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section in one-year increments that—
(i) Does not exceed a combined total of three years under paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section;
(ii) Does not exceed a total of three years under paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section;
(iii) Does not exceed a total of three years under paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section; or
(iv) Does not exceed a total of three years under paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of this section.
(b) A grant recipient, or his or her representative in the case of a grant recipient who qualifies under paragraph (a)(1)(iv) or (vi) of this section, must apply for a suspension on a form approved by the Secretary, prior to being subject to any of the conditions under § 686.43(a)(1) through (5) that would cause the TEACH Grant to convert to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan.
(c) A grant recipient, or his or her representative in the case of a grant recipient who qualifies under paragraph (a)(1)(v) or (vi) of this section, must provide the Secretary with documentation supporting the suspension request as well as current contact information including home address and telephone number.
(d) On a case-by-case basis, the Secretary may grant a temporary suspension of the period for completing the service obligation if the Secretary determines that a grant recipient was unable to complete a full academic year of teaching or begin the next academic year of teaching due to exceptional circumstances significantly affecting the operation of the school or educational service agency where the grant recipient was employed or the grant recipient's ability to teach.
(e) The Secretary notifies the grant recipient regarding the outcome of the application for suspension.
The revisions reads as follows:
(b)
(2) If at any time the Secretary determines that the grant recipient does not meet the requirements of the three-year period following the discharge as described in § 685.213(b)(7) of this chapter, the Secretary will notify the grant recipient that the grant recipient's obligation to satisfy the terms of the agreement to serve or repay is reinstated.
(3) The Secretary's notification under paragraph (b)(2) of this section will—
(i) Include the reason or reasons for reinstatement;
(ii) Provide information on how the grant recipient may contact the Secretary if the grant recipient has questions about the reinstatement or believes that the agreement to serve or repay was reinstated based on incorrect information; and
(iii) Inform the TEACH Grant recipient that he or she must satisfy the service obligation within the portion of the eight-year period that remained after the date of the discharge.
(4) If the TEACH Grant made to a recipient whose TEACH Grant agreement to serve or repay is reinstated is later converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan, the recipient will not be required to pay interest that accrued on the TEACH Grant disbursements from the date the agreement to serve or repay was discharged until the date the agreement to serve or repay was reinstated.
The revisions read as follows:
(a)(1) The TEACH Grant amounts disbursed to the recipient will be converted into a Direct Unsubsidized Loan, with interest accruing from the date that each grant disbursement was made and be collected by the Secretary in accordance with the relevant provisions of subpart A of part 685 of this chapter if—
(i) The grant recipient, regardless of enrollment status, requests that the TEACH Grant be converted into a Direct Unsubsidized Loan because he or she has decided not to teach in a qualified school or educational service agency, or not to teach in a high-need field, or for any other reason; or
(ii) The grant recipient does not begin or maintain qualified employment within the timeframe that would allow that individual to complete the service obligation within the number of years required under § 686.12.
(2) At least annually during the service obligation period under § 686.12, the Secretary notifies the grant recipient of—
(i) The terms and conditions that the grant recipient must meet to satisfy the service obligation;
(ii) The requirement for the grant recipient to provide to the Secretary, upon completion of each of the four required elementary or secondary academic years of teaching service, documentation of that teaching service on a form approved by the Secretary and certified by the chief administrative officer of the school or educational service agency in which the grant recipient taught and emphasizes the necessity to keep copies of this information and copies of the recipient's own employment documentation;
(iii) The service years completed and the remaining timeframe within which the grant recipient must complete the service obligation;
(iv) The conditions under which the grant recipient may request a temporary suspension of the period for completing the service obligation;
(v) The conditions as described under § 686.43(a)(1) under which the TEACH Grant amounts disbursed to the recipient will be converted into a Direct Unsubsidized Loan;
(vi) The potential total interest accrued;
(vii) The process by which the recipient may contact the Secretary to request reconsideration of the conversion, the deadline by which the grant recipient must submit the request for reconsideration, and a list of the specific documentation required by the Secretary to reconsider the conversion; and
(viii) An explanation that to avoid further accrual of interest as described in § 686.12(b)(4)(ii), a grant recipient who decides not to teach in a qualified school or field, or who for any other reason no longer intends to satisfy the service obligation, may request that the Secretary convert his or her TEACH Grant to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan that the grant recipient may begin repaying immediately, instead of waiting for the TEACH Grant to be converted to a loan under the condition described in § 686.43(a)(1)(ii).
(3) On or about 90 days before the date that a grant recipient's TEACH Grants would be converted to Direct Unsubsidized Loans in accordance with paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, the Secretary notifies the grant recipient of the date by which the recipient must submit documentation showing that the recipient is satisfying the obligation.
(4) If the TEACH Grant amounts disbursed to a recipient are converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan, the Secretary notifies the recipient of the conversion and offers conversion counseling as described in § 686.32(e).
(5) If a grant recipient's TEACH Grant was converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan in accordance with paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, the Secretary will reconvert the loan to a TEACH Grant if, within one year of the conversion date, the recipient provides the Secretary with documentation showing that he or she is satisfying the service obligation.
(6) If a grant recipient's TEACH Grant was involuntarily converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan, the Secretary will reconvert the loan to a TEACH Grant based on documentation provided by the recipient or in the Department's records that demonstrate that the recipient was satisfying the service obligation as described in § 686.12 or that the grant was improperly converted to a loan.
(7) If a grant recipient who requests reconsideration demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that a TEACH Grant was converted to a loan in error, the Secretary—
(i) Reconverts the loan to a TEACH Grant and—
(A) If the grant recipient completed one or more academic years of qualifying teaching service during the period the grant was wrongly in loan status, the Secretary applies that teaching service toward the grant recipient's four-year service obligation requirement and suspends the period the grant was wrongly in loan status from the eight-year service period during which the grant recipient must complete their service obligation; or
(B) If the grant recipient did not complete any academic years of qualifying teaching service during the period the grant was wrongly in loan status, the Secretary suspends the period the grant was wrongly in loan status from the eight-year service period during which the grant recipient must complete their service obligation;
(ii) Ensures that the grant recipient receives credit for any payments that were made on the Direct Unsubsidized Loan that was reconverted to a TEACH Grant;
(iii) Notifies the recipient of the reconversion to a grant and explains that the recipient is once again responsible for meeting all requirements of the service obligation under § 686.12; and
(iv) Requests deletion of any derogatory information reported to the consumer reporting agencies related to the grant while it was in loan status and, upon a request from the grant recipient, furnishes a statement of error that the recipient may provide to creditors until the recipient's credit history has been corrected.
(8) If a grant recipient who requests reconsideration does not demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that a TEACH Grant was converted to a loan in error, the Secretary—
(i) Notifies the recipient that the loan cannot be converted to a TEACH Grant;
(ii) Explains the reason or reasons why the loan cannot be converted to a TEACH Grant; and
(iii) Explains how the recipient may contact the Federal Student Aid Ombudsman if he or she continues to believe that the TEACH Grant was converted to a loan in error.
(9) A TEACH Grant recipient remains obligated to meet all requirements of the service obligation under § 686.12, even if the recipient does not receive the notices from the Secretary as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) A TEACH Grant that is converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan cannot be reconverted to a grant except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section.
20 U.S.C. 1070a, 1070g, unless otherwise noted.
20 U.S.C. 1070c-1070c-4, unless otherwise noted.
(c) * * *
(5) Not involve the construction, operation, or maintenance of so much of any facility as is used or is to be used for sectarian instruction or as a place for religious worship; and
20 U.S.C. 1070a-21 to 1070a-28.
The revision reads as follows:
(b) When providing GEAR UP services to students attending private schools, the employee, individual, association, agency, or organization must be employed or contracted independently of the private school that the students attend, and of any other organization affiliated with the school, and that employment or contract must be under the control and supervision of the public agency.