Food and Nutrition Service
Rural Housing Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Energy Information Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Rural Housing Service (RHS or Agency) published a proposed rule on August 23, 2018, proposing to implement changes to the single family housing guaranteed loan program (SFHGLP) regulation to streamline the loss claim process for lenders who have acquired title to property through voluntary liquidation or foreclosure; clarify that lenders must comply with applicable laws, including those within the purview of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB); and better align loss mitigation policies with the mortgage industry. Through this action, RHS finalizes the rule largely as proposed with some revisions.
Effective April 24, 2020.
Kate Jensen, Finance and Loan Analyst, Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Division, STOP 0784, Room 2250, USDA Rural Development, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0784, telephone: (503) 894-2382, email is
The expansion of the SFHGLP in recent years has led the Agency to investigate opportunities to streamline the program policies and procedures, align the Agency with accepted industry practices, and balance Agency resources with program demand. To help achieve these objectives, this rule modifies the loss claim and loss mitigation processes.
The Agency is implementing two primary changes to the loss claim process in the areas of timing and valuation of property that has been acquired by a lender (referred to as Real Estate Owned (REO) property). The Agency will not change the loan guarantee limits under 7 CFR 3555.351.
Regarding the timing of loss claims, the Agency currently affords lenders (defined in 7 CFR 3555.10 as entities making, holding, or servicing SFHGLP loans) the opportunity to submit loss claims on REO property after foreclosure; during a nine-month marketing period; or if the property has not sold during the nine-month marketing period (twelve-month for tribal land), through the submission of an Estimated Net Recovery (ENR) loss claim. The current options create uncertainty, as it may take many months before a loss claim package is submitted and processed and impose significant administrative burden on lenders and the Agency. To streamline the process, the Agency will eliminate the options of the nine-month marketing period and ENR loss claims. Instead, all loss claims will be submitted in a timely manner (discussed further below) after lender acquisition of title without waiting for a potential sale to a third party during the marketing period. In addition, the elimination of the ENR loss claim option will eliminate the need for lenders to monitor, and the Agency to collect, Future Recovery payments. Therefore, the Agency is removing the Future Recovery requirements at 7 CFR 3555.356.
Regarding the valuation of REO property, the Agency currently requires lenders to obtain a liquidation value appraisal to determine security property value and calculate the loss claim amount. Under the final rule, the Agency will replace the liquidation value appraisal with a market value appraisal in conjunction with a model to determine the security property value as the basis to calculate the loss claim amount. The Agency presently requires the submission of receipts for actual property preservation and disposal costs. Property preservation and disposal costs will now be based on the Veterans Administration Management and Acquisition Factor (aka the VA Net Value Factor) found at
Through the changes made by the final rule to the loss claim process, the Agency anticipates a more streamlined approach to loss claim payment processing. Therefore, the Agency will limit the amount of additional interest (accrued between the settlement date and loss claim payment) included in the loss claim payment to 60 days of additional interest during the loss claim period.
The final rule makes several other changes to improve and clarify the loss claim process.
The Agency will revise 7 CFR 3555.354, which currently allows lenders to submit a loss claim electronically or in paper format. The change will require all lenders to utilize a web-based system to submit loss claims that will make it easier for both lenders and the Agency.
The Agency will also add a definition for settlement date for deed-in-lieu actions for purposes of calculating loss claims. The Agency will define the settlement date of the deed-in-lieu as the date title is recorded. The current version of the regulation does not address this issue.
Changes regarding loss mitigation procedures will continue the Agency's efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of loss mitigation by emphasizing payment reduction. Historically, borrowers who receive a payment reduction of less than 10 percent have re-defaulted at a rate greater than 60 percent. When at least a 10 percent payment reduction is achieved, the re-default rate is reduced by half. The changes will continue to increase homeownership success and decrease foreclosures. The Agency
The Agency will also add a Mortgage Recovery Advance (MRA) option that will not require a modification to the terms of the promissory note. This option will create an opportunity for borrowers with a resolved hardship to cure the delinquency and retain their already affordable payment.
The Agency will also amend 7 CFR 3555.51(b)(1) to clarify that in addition to complying with Agency laws and guidance, lenders must comply with other applicable federal, state, and local laws, including those that fall under the purview of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), such as the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).
On August 23, 2018, RHS published a proposed rule regarding the changes to SFHGLP loss claims and loss mitigation discussed above (83 FR 42618-42622). The Agency received comments from nine respondents including lenders, State Housing Finance Agencies, industry trade groups, and other interested parties. Specific public comments are addressed below in order of appearance in the regulation.
Nine respondents supported the Agency's proposal to streamline the loss claim process for lenders who have acquired title to properties through voluntary liquidation or foreclosure.
Two respondents requested clarification when the rule would be enacted, and which loans will be directly affected by the changes. The new rule will affect all loans where lender acquisition or possession of the property takes place on or after the Final Rule effective date.
Six respondents requested further definition of “acquisition of title” along with the request to amend the regulation requirement to include the vacancy status of the property. The proposed rule stated the lender should order an appraisal within fifteen days of acquiring title to the property and did not consider the potential inability to complete an interior appraisal if eviction action would be required. In response to these comments, the Agency will amend the regulation in § 3555.353(b) to require the lender to submit a loss claim package, including a market value appraisal, within 60 days of the foreclosure sale date or the date the lender acquires title. If eviction action is required in order to obtain a market value appraisal, the lender must submit the loss claim package, including the market value appraisal, within 60 days of the date the occupants clear the premises (also referred to in this notice as a lender taking “possession” of the property).
One respondent requested the Agency to define “cost effective” and “significant amount” as used in § 3555.302(b) for purposes of determining when protective advances require concurrence from the Agency and cover costs besides taxes and insurance. The respondent suggested that if the cost of a protective advance exceeds ten percent of the market value of the property, Agency concurrence is required. This align with existing published policy in the USDA SFHGLP Handbook Chapters 17 and 18 regarding Pre-Foreclosure Sales (PFS) and Deed-in-Lieu transactions. The Agency will continue to provide additional guidance to lenders as necessary. No change is made to the regulation.
One respondent requested the Agency to allow for additional payment of interest when USDA exceeds 60 days for processing claims. At minimum, the respondent recommends a review process within USDA to quarterly or bi-annually review cycle times and publish a requirement in this regulation that will allow some flexibility to reimburse interest beyond 60 days. The Agency believes that it is well positioned through improvements in the process created with this change to meet the 60-day timeframe for processing loss claims. No change is made to the provision. However, in the unlikely event that it takes more than 60 days to process a loss claim, the Agency may pay up to 90 days of additional interest if provided for in the relevant Loan Note Guarantee (Form RD 3555-17). The Agency plans to amend the Loan Note Guarantee for consistency with the 60-day limit in the final rule.
Three respondents believe the Agency should publish the loss claim model algorithm to allow lenders increased transparency to better model potential outcomes. The Agency is providing an overview of the loss claim model algorithm as follows: The Property Sale Value Calculator (PSVC) uses a statistical technique known as linear regression. The PSVC is based on, and like, the Federal Housing Agency's (FHA) Loss Given Default (LGD) model, which also uses linear regression. For a detailed description of FHA's LGD model, see Section 5 of the Congressional Budget Office's working paper,
Linear regression is a statistical method for estimating one unknown variable using other known variables. The result of linear regression analysis is an equation of coefficients based on historical relationships between variables. Inputting known variables into the equation generates an estimate of the unknown variable—the property sale value. The model coefficients use data on approximately 94,000 historical claims from the program. The Agency updates the model coefficients annually using actual property sale values acquired through a third-party data provider. The Agency adds historical data to the model every year and re-generates coefficients to ensure historical relationships between variables represent the most recent data available and that the model produces accurate property value estimates.
The servicing system takes known loan characteristic values based on the REO date and multiplies them by the coefficients. The products are then summed to output the estimated property sale value.
Table 1 (below) presents the variables used in the model along with the variable type and a description. The model uses two types of variables: Continuous and categorical. Continuous variables can have any numeric value. Categorical variables have a value of one if they fall within a certain range and a value of zero if they do not. If a loan has a categorical variable with a value of zero, that means the coefficient is not applicable to the loan and the model does not adjust the estimated property sale value for that characteristic. The model only adjusts the estimated property sale value for certain states.
One respondent encouraged the Agency to publish the findings from the “Settle at Foreclosure Pilot Program,” to help lenders better understand potential effects to their portfolio's loss assumptions on RHS properties which have culminated in a foreclosure sale. The Agency has received positive feedback from pilot lenders concerning reduction of loss claim documentation, the elimination of property disposition plans, and collection of future recovery. Additionally, pilot lenders receive payment of loss claim funds sooner as compared to the current system. This is evidenced internally through a reduction in loss claim processing time for the Agency. The Agency believes further information regarding the pilot is unnecessary at this time given the overview of the loss claim algorithm above and will provide further guidance as necessary.
One respondent suggested the regulation should address differences between estimated and actual expenses and that RHS should specify that actual expenses are captured for claim filing only when all necessary steps to make a property stable have occurred. The proposed changes to the regulation do not require the servicing lender to use actual expenses since the new process utilizes estimated property preservation and disposal expenses using the VA Net Value Factor. No change is made to this provision.
Three respondents commented on the Agency's use of the VA Net Value Factor to estimate holding and deposition costs. All three respondents contended the VA Net Value Factor consistently and significantly underestimates the actual expenses and believes lenders will not be sufficiently compensated for holding and property management costs. The VA Net Value Factor is a long-established model widely utilized in the mortgage servicing industry for loss claim servicing. The VA Net Value Factor regularly updates the factor taking into account the costs of servicing single family properties. The Agency has used the VA Net Value Factor since 1999 with success and does not believe that there are industry accepted alternatives to the VA Net Value Factor. No change is made to this provision.
One respondent suggested that RHS should continue to develop and support alternative disposition strategies. Given the resource savings to RHS and the timeframe reduction in the proposed rule, the respondent requests that RHS should not implement this rule at the cost of alternative disposition strategies. Instead, RHS should continue to prioritize efforts to develop or enhance disposition options that do not result in lenders taking a property into inventory. The adoption of this new loss claim regulation should not prohibit or discourage lenders from offering borrowers the full range of loss mitigation options. The Agency fully supports loss mitigation activity in lieu of foreclosure and will not eliminate any requirements that lenders offer and investigate loss mitigation alternatives prior to foreclosure as required in § 3555.301(b).
One respondent proposed that the value of the property to determine loss claim calculation be based on the outstanding unpaid principal balance (UPB) and percentage of loss coverage in the Loan Note Guarantee. The respondent contends the suggested valuation method will not establish a reliable property value. If existing UPBs were utilized to establish value, there would be no loss and any future claim payments would be reduced or nonexistent. The Agency did not propose to change the percentage of coverage based on the original loan amount and will retain the loan guarantee limits as outlined in § 3555.351. No change is made to this provision.
One respondent requested that a time limit be imposed on post-payment review or eliminate repayment under post-payment reviews. This was not addressed in the proposed rule and, therefore, no further action will be taken.
Two respondents commented on the proposed general lender requirements to clarify that in addition to complying with Agency laws and guidance, lenders must comply with all other applicable federal, state, and local laws. The first respondent requested the Agency update the language in regulation § 3555.51(b)(1) instead of § 3555.6. The Agency agrees to update § 3555.51(b)(1) versus § 3555.6.
The second respondent requested the Agency to include the RESPA and TILA obligations. The updated language in § 3555.51(b) refers to all applicable laws, and specifically mentions RESPA and TILA. Lenders may refer to the CFPB regulations implementing RESPA and TILA, including those at 12 CFR parts 1024 and 1026, for specific requirements. It is redundant and unnecessary for the Agency to repeat the content of those regulations in 7 CFR part 3555. No change is made in this provision.
Four respondents commented on the proposed regulation language at 7 CFR 3555.303(b)(3)(v) regarding the option for a lender to require a trial plan before a traditional servicing loan modification. One respondent requested clarification as to when a trial period should be used to ensure equal treatment of all borrowers. The current regulation only requires a trial period when Special Servicing Options are utilized, and the updated regulation language provides flexibility to the lender/to determine whether a trial period is warranted or required by lender or investor guidelines for other retention options. The Agency does not believe it is necessary or helpful for the Agency to prescribe when trial periods may be required. No change is made to this provision.
Two of the four respondents expressed concern that by not requiring a trial plan prior to a traditional servicing loan modification, the loans will not meet the investor buyout requirements. While the final rule will
The fourth respondent requested that the Agency eliminate the requirement for trial period plans to increase borrower access to loss mitigation measures. As previously discussed, the regulation in 3555.303 will not require a trial plan for traditional servicing loan modifications. It is the lender's responsibility to determine if a trial plan is warranted and/or a trial plan is required by lender or investor guidelines. The regulation does require the use of trial plans for special servicing extended term loan modifications. No change is made to this provision.
Two respondents proposed the MRA eligibility threshold be adjusted. Both commenters suggest RHS adjust the eligibility threshold to “31 percent or less.” This would align with the eligibility cut-off for Special Servicing measures making the MRA only an option for all customers ineligible for Special Loan Servicing. The Agency agrees and will amend the regulation to state “31 percent or less.”
One of the two respondents also requested RHS to provide clarity on where the MRA eligibility threshold would fit in the servicing waterfall. Details on the waterfall will be addressed in the
One respondent proposed RHS change the verbiage in section § 3555.304(d)(2) from “date of default” to “date of initial default” to align with industry standards. The Agency agrees and will adopt the language “date of initial default.”
One respondent suggested that RHS should amend § 3555.303 to permit capitalization of protective advances in traditional servicing loan modifications. The respondent suggested RHS update the regulation to explicitly permit lenders to capitalize protective advances related to the maintenance and preservation of mortgage properties. The Agency does not believe such a change is necessary at this time, and the suggestion is outside the scope of the proposed rule. No change is made to this provision.
One respondent requested clarification that modified interest rates for loan modifications are not limited by the interest rate at the time the Loan Note Guarantee (LNG) was issued. The proposed rule provided in § 3555.304(c)(1) that the modified interest rate for special servicing extended term loan modifications not exceed the market interest rate and eliminated the reference to the interest rate stated in the LNG. The Agency will make a similar change in § 3555.303(b)(3)(i) regarding traditional servicing loan modifications.
One respondent requested that RHS incorporate an exclusion waiver from loss mitigation options requiring a change in the interest rate, a write off of principal, and/or extension of the term of the mortgage for Housing Finance Agencies with loans funded through the sale of Mortgage Revenue Bonds. This authority is already provided to lenders in the
One respondent recommended that RHS should eliminate the requirement for agency approval of all loss mitigation decisions and instead establish a loss mitigation appeals process for disputed cases. Instead of having RHS review each case, the Agency must instead divert those resources to an appeal process by which the borrower can address lenders mistakes. The commenter believes the Agency should implement appeal rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1480(g). The Agency is finalizing the elimination of the need for Agency concurrence for all loss mitigation plans. The suggestion to add appeal processes beyond what is already provided for § 3555.4 is unnecessary and outside the scope of the proposed rule. No change is made to this provision.
One respondent suggested the Agency should require lenders to provide servicing plans to borrowers. They stated RHS should require the lender to simultaneously provide the borrower with copies of all servicing plans submitted to the Agency regarding the borrower's loan. RESPA and Regulation X (12 CFR part 1024), administered by the CFPB, govern mortgage servicing disclosure requirements. It is unnecessary for the Agency to duplicate or add to those requirements. No change is made in this provision.
One respondent requested the Agency to clarify that unpaid principal balance is not counted twice in the modification calculation and RHS should make it clear how the terms of modifications are calculated to avoid confusion. The Agency agrees and will clarify the language in sections § 3555.303(b)(3)(ii) for traditional servicing loan modifications and the new § 3555.304(c)(1) for special servicing extended term loan modifications.
One respondent proposed three changes to the updated regulation that are outside of the scope of the published proposed rule. The first recommended the Agency fully implement the FHA-Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) waterfall. The second was a suggestion to include language in required notices and form documents to clearly identify the loan status. The third called for the implementation of payment moratorium options for borrowers in default. These items are outside of the scope of this rulemaking and not necessary at this time. No change is made to this provision.
One respondent stated the Agency should eliminate the debt-to-income cap and clarify that lenders must waive late fees in connection with a successful loss mitigation. The Agency does not consider these suggestions as necessary at this time, and they are outside the scope of the proposed rule. No change is made to this provision.
One respondent suggested RHS should modernize its data collection systems and its quality control process to improve its evaluation of loss mitigation options. These items were not addressed in the proposed rule and are considered to be outside of the scope. No change is made in response to this comment.
The loss mitigation changes will offer borrowers faster and greater payment relief early in the loan delinquency. The changes will continue to increase homeownership success and decrease foreclosures. The Agency expects a corresponding reduction in lender-owned properties resulting in greater community stability as well as decreased expenses associated with foreclosure and property disposition.
This rule has been determined to be non-significant and therefore was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Except where specified, all State and local laws and regulations that are in direct conflict with this rule will be preempted. Federal funds carry Federal requirements. No person is required to apply for funding under the SFHGLP, but if they do apply and are selected for funding, they must comply with the requirements applicable to the
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effect of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Agency generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million, or more, in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, subpart A, “Environmental Policies.” It is the determination of the Agency that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.
The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Executive Order 13175 imposes requirements on RHS in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications or preempt tribal laws. RHS has determined that the final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe determines that this rule has implications of which RHS is not aware and would like to engage with RHS on this rule, please contact USDA's Native American Coordinator at (720) 544-2911 or
These loans are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. RHS conducts intergovernmental consultations for each SFHGLP loan in accordance with 2 CFR part 415, subpart C.
The program affected by this regulation is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Number 10.410, Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans (Section 502 Rural Housing Loans).
The information collection and record keeping requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by OMB in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The assigned OMB control number is 0570-0179.
The Agency is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
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)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Home improvement, Loan Programs—Housing and community development, Eligible loan purpose, Construction, Loan terms, Mortgages, Rural areas.
Therefore, chapter XXXV, title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 1471
(5) The date title is acquired upon recordation of a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, with prior approval of the lender.
(b) * * *
(1) * * * Lenders must also comply with all other applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, and requirements, including those under the purview of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, such as the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Truth in Lending Act. * * *
(h)
(b) * * * The lender must obtain prior Agency concurrence before issuing protective advances under this paragraph of a significant amount as specified by the Agency.
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Loan modifications must be a fixed interest rate and cannot exceed the market interest rate at the time of modification.
(ii) Loan modifications may capitalize all or a portion of the arrearage and/or reamortization of the balance due including foreclosure fees and costs, tax and insurance advances, and past due Agency annual fees imposed by the lender. Late charges and lender fees may not be capitalized.
(v) Lenders may require that borrowers complete a trial payment plan prior to making scheduled payments amended by the traditional loan servicing loan modification.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) If the borrower currently has a mortgage payment to income ratio of 31 percent or less, special servicing options can be utilized to cure the delinquency without modifying the note; otherwise, special servicing options shall be used in the order established in this section to bring the borrower's mortgage payment to income ratio as close as possible to, but not less than, 31 percent.
(c) * * *
(1) Loan modifications may capitalize all or a portion of the arrearage and/or reamortization of the balance due including foreclosure fees and costs, tax and insurance advances, and past due Agency annual fees imposed by the lender. Late charges and lender fees may not be capitalized.
(2) Loan modifications must be a fixed interest rate and cannot exceed the current market interest rate at the time of modification. When reducing the interest rate, the maximum rate is subject to paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(d) * * *
(1) The maximum amount of a mortgage recovery advance is 30 percent of the unpaid principal balance as of the date of initial default. The Agency may change the maximum amount of mortgage recovery advance by publication in the
(2) If the borrower's total monthly mortgage payment is less than 31 percent of gross monthly income prior to an extended term loan modification, the mortgage recovery advance can be used to cure the borrower's delinquency without changing the terms of the promissory note.
The lender must have exhausted the servicing options outlined in §§ 3555.302 through 3555.304 to cure the delinquency before considering voluntary liquidation. The methods of voluntary liquidation of the security property outlined in this section may be used to protect the interests of the Government.
(a) * * *
(1) The loan is at least 30 days delinquent or meets the imminent default definition as outlined in § 3555.303(a)(2);
(f)
(c)
(e)
(a)
(b)
All lenders must use a web-based automated system designated by the Agency to submit all loss claim requests.
(b)
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).
Final rule; correction.
The
This correction is effective on January 1, 2020.
In FR Doc. 2019-23472 appearing on page 61776 in the
“31. Section 208.43 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, and (b)(1) to read as follows:”
“46. Section 225.14 is amended by:
a. Redesignating footnote 3 to paragraph (a)(1)(ii) as footnote 1 to paragraph (a)(1)(ii);
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(v), (a)(1)(vii), and (c)(6)(i)(A) and (B); and
c. Adding paragraphs (c)(6)(iii) and (f).”
Department of State.
Interim final rule; request for comment.
The Department of State amends the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to create a definition of “activities that are not exports, reexports, retransfers, or temporary imports” by combining existing text from the regulations with new text regarding secured unclassified technical data. The activities included in the new definition are: Launching items into space, providing technical data to U.S. persons within the United States or within a single country abroad, and moving a defense article between the states, possessions, and territories of the United States. The definition also clarifies that the electronic transmission and storage of properly secured unclassified technical data via foreign communications infrastructure does not constitute an export. Additionally, the Department amends the ITAR to create a definition of “access information” and revise the definition of “release” to address the provision of access information to an unauthorized foreign person.
Interested parties may submit comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Sarah Heidema, Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, telephone (202) 663-1282; email
The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), U.S. Department of State, administers the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR parts 120 through 130). The items subject to the jurisdiction of the ITAR,
On June 3, 2015, the Department of State published a proposed rule (80 FR 31525) (2015 proposed rule) and requested comments on an extensive array of proposed amendments to the ITAR, including the revision of key definitions, the creation of several new definitions, and the revision of related provisions. The proposed amendments also attempted to harmonize these definitions with the EAR to the extent appropriate. After reviewing the public comments on the 2015 proposed rule, the Department published an interim final rule on June 3, 2016 (81 FR 35611) (2016 interim final rule), which updated the definitions of “export” and “reexport or retransfer” and, in an effort to clarify and support the interpretation of these definitions, also created definitions of “release” and “retransfer.” BIS concurrently published amendments (BIS companion rule) to definitions, including “export,” “reexport,” “release,” and “transfer (in-country)” in the EAR (81 FR 35586). The Department subsequently reviewed the public comments on the 2016 interim final rule and published a final rule on September 8, 2016 (81 FR 62004) (2016 final rule), which revised the definition of “retransfer” and made other clarifying revisions. Not all of the amendments proposed in the 2015 proposed rule were adopted, and both the 2016 interim final rule and the 2016 final rule reserved the remaining amendments for consideration in separate rulemakings.
This interim final rulemaking addresses certain of the remaining amendments from the 2015 proposed rule, and the Department continues to reserve the remaining amendments for consideration in separate rulemakings. Included in this interim final rule is the creation of a definition for “activities that are not exports, reexports, retransfers, or temporary imports” under a new ITAR § 120.54 (§ 120.52 in the 2015 proposed rule). Among other things, this provision provides that the properly secured (by end-to-end encryption) electronic transmission or storage of unclassified technical data via foreign communications infrastructure does not constitute an export, reexport, retransfer, or temporary import.
The Department recognizes the BIS companion rule addressed these issues with the creation of EAR § 734.18, and the Department has received repeated enquiries regarding when a similar rule would be issued regarding the ITAR. In an effort to align the definition in the ITAR with the definition in the EAR, the interim final rule described below is structured similarly to EAR § 734.18. The Department also recognizes that it has received public comments regarding these amendments to the ITAR. Where appropriate, those comments are addressed in the analysis below. In light of the potential impact the amendments in this rule may have on the regulated community's processes, and the updated security strength standards described below, the Department considered it appropriate to provide another opportunity for the public to submit comments and therefore publishes this rule as an interim final rule with the opportunity for the public to provide comment.
The Department adds § 120.54 to describe those “activities that are not exports, reexports, retransfers, or temporary imports” and do not require authorization from the Department. For the purpose of this preamble, the Department will use the term “controlled event” to mean an export, reexport, retransfer, or temporary import, all of which require a DDTC license or other approval.
The first of five provisions in the new § 120.54 states in paragraph (a)(1) that it is not a controlled event to launch items into space. This activity is already excluded from the definition of an export in ITAR § 120.17(a)(6) and by statute, see 51 U.S.C. 50919(f). In an effort to consolidate the different activities that do not qualify as exports under the ITAR, this provision has been moved to § 120.54(a)(1), and the language has been simplified.
The second provision states in paragraph (a)(2) that it is not a controlled event to transmit or otherwise transfer technical data to a U.S. person within the United States from a person in the United States. In response to public comments, the updated version of paragraph (a)(2) provides that a transmission or other transfer between U.S. persons who are in the United States is unequivocally not a controlled event. However, any release to a foreign person remains a controlled event.
The third provision, which was not included in the 2015 proposed rule but is added here in response to public comments to that proposed rule, is found in the new paragraph (a)(3). This provision states that transmissions or other transfers of technical data between and among only U.S. persons in the same foreign country are similarly not reexports or retransfers so long as they do not result in a release to a foreign person or transfer to a person prohibited from receiving the technical data because that person is otherwise precluded from engaging in the regulated activity, for example a debarred person.
The fourth provision states in paragraph (a)(4) that it is not a controlled event to move a defense article between the states, possessions, and territories of the United States. One commenter requested that the Department revise paragraph (a)(4) to list explicitly the Virgin Islands of the United States, Guam, American Samoa, and the various United States Minor Outlying Islands. The Department will not make this change because the ITAR already defines the term “United States” in § 120.13, and that definition is applicable.
The fifth provision states in paragraph (a)(5) that it is not a controlled event to send, take, or store unclassified technical data when it is effectively encrypted using end-to-end encryption. Therefore, a controlled event does not occur when technical data is encrypted
The encryption must be accomplished in a manner that is certified by the U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) as compliant with the Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 140-2 (FIPS 140-2), or must meet or exceed a 128-bit security strength. At the time of publication of this rule, that criterion is expressed in “Table 2: Comparable strengths” of NIST Special Publication 800-57 Part 1, Revision 4. Additionally, the technical data may not be intentionally sent to a person in or stored in a § 126.1 country or the Russian Federation, even in its encrypted state. This will allow for transmissions and storage of encrypted data in most foreign countries, so long as the technical data remains continuously encrypted while outside of the United States or until decrypted by an authorized intended recipient.
In response to public comments regarding the requirement of the 2015 proposed rule that the encryption be via a FIPS 140-2 compliant module, the Department added language that allows encryption through means other than FIPS 140-2 compliant modules, so long as it meets or exceeds a 128-bit security strength. One commenter suggested that the Department retain only FIPS 140-2 to encourage interoperability between systems, but the overwhelming number of commenters requested other encryption modules be allowed. The Department also clarified that intentional storage in the Russian Federation or a § 126.1 country constitutes a controlled event. However, incidental collection by a foreign intelligence service or transient storage that is incidental to sending information via the internet does not.
Further, in response to public comments, the Department revised paragraph (b) to clarify the definition of end-to-end encryption. The cryptographic protection must be applied prior to the data being sent outside of the originator's security boundary and remain undisturbed until it arrives within the security boundary of the intended recipient. For communications between individuals, this can be accomplished by encrypting the data on the sender's computer prior to emailing or otherwise sending it to the intended recipient. For large entities, the security boundary may be managed by IT staff, who will encrypt the data before it leaves the entity's secure network and decrypt it on the way into the network. However, in all instances, the means of decryption must not be provided to any third party and the data must not have the cryptographic protection removed at any point in transit.
One commenter suggested that the Department define which modules under FIPS 140-2 are compliant and which NIST publications are applicable, in the rule. The Department disagrees with this comment. Compliance with any of the four levels set out in FIPS 140-2 is sufficient for the purposes of this section. Exporters are free to choose the level that best meets their needs. Different NIST publications are relevant to each standard, so the applicable publications will depend on the standard used.
One commenter suggested that the Department provide one year from the issuance of a new NIST standard for implementation. The Department disagrees with this comment. The NIST standards will be final and applicable when NIST makes them the standard.
One commenter requested that the Department allow a transition period so that exporters can implement IT systems compliant with paragraph (5). The Department disagrees with this comment. Paragraph (5) creates a mechanism for companies to send and store technical data outside the United States without engaging in a controlled event. Until companies implement an IT system that is compliant with paragraph (5), they may not take advantage of this paragraph, but nothing in paragraph (5) places any new requirements on exporters, therefore there is no need for a transition period.
One commenter suggested that the Department revise paragraph (b) to say “the means to access the data in unencrypted form is not `released' to any third party” rather than “the means to access the data in unencrypted form is not given to any third party,” as “release” is a defined term. The Department disagrees with this comment. The Department did revise this concept in paragraph (b) to require that “the means of decryption are not provided to any third party,” but the Department chose not to use the word “released” because that word has a technical definition that would not be applicable in this usage.
Several commenters requested that the Department provide a safe harbor, of sorts, by only requiring that cloud customers obtain contractual assurances that the data would not be stored in a § 126.1 country or the Russian Federation. The Department disagrees with this comment. Such a provision would not be in the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The Department recognizes it can be difficult to control the actions of third parties, including partners, service providers, and subcontractors, and will review potential violations on a case-by-case basis, subject to the totality of the facts and circumstances comprising the issue at hand.
One commenter requested that the Department clarify that appropriately encrypted transmissions may transit the Russian Federation or a § 126.1 country and still qualify for this provision. The Department clarified this point by adding the word “intentionally,” to differentiate those electronic transmissions that were intentionally sent to Russia or a § 126.1 country, and those that simply transited them in route to another country. The commenter also provided an example of such a transmission where an email server is located in the Russian Federation or a § 126.1 country. Transmission through these destinations is allowed, including temporary storage incident to internet transmissions, but long-term storage of the information, such as is commonly done on email servers, is prohibited in these destinations. Prior to using this provision, putative exporters should ensure that the intended recipient or any intended remote storage provider does not store their information in the Russian Federation or a § 126.1 country.
One commenter requested that the Department provide that emails between authorized parties in the same country also be included in the definition of activities that are not exports, reexports, or retransfers if they happen to transit a third country, even if the technical data is not encrypted as described in paragraph (5). The Department notes that transmissions between U.S. persons in the United States are not exports under paragraph (2), but that with respect to transmissions in foreign countries, only those communications that remain in one country between only U.S. persons are excluded under paragraph (3). If a company in a foreign country is concerned that emails that include technical data may transit third countries, it should encrypt those
Several commenters requested that the Department revise the local definition of end-to-end encryption to allow for information security mechanisms that render the data into clear text in route to the intended recipient, for processing via applications, such as anti-virus software or spell-check. The commenters also note that multiple layers of encryption may be applied and removed throughout the transit of the data. The Department disagrees with this comment. Use of paragraph (a)(5) requires that the technical data subject to the ITAR be continuously encrypted at all times while outside of an authorized security boundary. The Department is aware that there are many ways that this provision can be implemented; some of which would allow an entity to run anti-virus or other security scans prior to allowing the data onto its servers. As long as that initial encryption layer remains intact, the addition or removal of subsequent layers of encryption, which may or may not meet the FIPS 140-2 standard, is not relevant to the application of this section.
One commenter requested that the Department include the electronic storage in the United States and transfer from the United States of non-U.S. origin technical data by non-U.S. persons within the activities that are not an export, reexport, or retransfer, even when not encrypted. The Department disagrees with this comment. Non-U.S. origin technical data transiting or stored in the United States that is encrypted in the manner described in paragraph (a)(5) (
One commenter stated that paragraph (a)(5) in this rule does not authorize the export of technical data in a physical medium and requested that the Department revise paragraph (a)(5) to allow the shipment or carriage of technical data in a physical medium that has been properly encrypted. The Department notes that the comment mischaracterizes the activity. The movement or storage of controlled technical data in a properly encrypted state outside of the United States is not an export as defined in § 120.17(a)(1), the specific concern raised by the commenter, or a controlled event of any type, and does not require authorization. The Department notes that paragraph (a)(5) is not limited to electronic transmissions and the shipment or carriage of technical data in a physical medium is not a controlled event, so long as all of the conditions are met.
One commenter requested that the Department expand paragraph (a)(5) to cover tokenization, as well as encryption. Tokenization is a process whereby individual elements of a document, be they letters, words, diagrams, or pictures, are replaced by a representative token. As described by the commenter, the tokens are assigned randomly and a key of the document is created. The document may not be returned to the original text from the tokens without use of the specific key for that document. This process is different from encryption, in that encryption uses an algorithm to encode the document, such that representative characters are assigned according to a mathematical formula that can, at least theoretically, be deciphered through analysis of the encrypted text. The Department will not add tokenization. There is no NIST or other comparable standard that the Department can reference to set a minimum threshold for implementation of tokenization.
One commenter suggested that the Department encourage other jurisdictions to adopt a provision similar to paragraph (a)(5) in their export control systems. The Department agrees, and has already engaged in discussions with allies regarding paragraph (a)(5).
One commenter requested that the Department add shipping to and within the territory of an approved end-user as an activity that is not an export, reexport, or retransfer. The Department disagrees with this comment. A shipment to the territory of an approved end-user is an export or reexport that requires authorization. Shipments within the territory of an authorized end-user will likewise require authorization if the shipment is to someone other than the authorized end-user or for activities other than the authorized end-use.
One commenter requested that the Department create a definition of “basic technical data” and include the sharing of such information in this section, analogizing to the sharing of the owner's manual for a car. The Department disagrees with this comment. The export of technical data requires authorization from the Department. If the Department were to define some portion of technical data that does not warrant control, the Department would revise § 120.6 or § 120.10 to exclude it.
One commenter suggested that the Department include shipments to military post offices in this section, noting that the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) treats transfers to military post offices as domestic transfers. The Department disagrees with this comment. The export of a defense article shipped to a military post office via the U.S. Postal Service is accomplished by the U.S. military and therefore may be authorized without a license via § 126.4 of the ITAR, so long as the other terms and conditions of that provision are met.
As stated above, the Department moves the language of § 120.17(a)(6), which articulates that it is not an export to launch items into space, to § 120.52(a)(1), and simplifies the language. In its place, the Department adds a new § 120.17(a)(6) in order to include within the definition of export the release through the use of access information of previously encrypted technical data as described in § 120.50(a)(3) (to a foreign person, no matter where located) and (a)(4) (causing the technical data to be in an unencrypted form out of the United States). The Department added a citation to § 120.54 to §§ 120.17(a), 120.18, 120.19(a), and 120.51(a), which define export, temporary import, reexport, and retransfer, respectively, to exclude from those definitions activities identified in § 120.54. In addition, the Department takes this opportunity to revise § 120.17(a) in order to mirror the construction of the other definitions of controlled activities and lead with the defined term of “export.”
The Department adds new § 120.55 to define “access information.” Access information allows access to encrypted technical data in an unencrypted form, such as decryption keys, network access codes, and passwords. An authorization is required to release technical data through access information to the same extent that an authorization is required to export the technical data when it is unsecured by encryption.
Several commenters requested that the Department adopt the knowledge requirement that was included in the BIS companion rule and now appears in EAR § 734.19. The Department disagrees with this comment. As provided in §§ 120.50(b) and 120.54(b), an existing authorization for the release of technical data to the foreign person must be in
The Department adds two new subparagraphs to paragraph (a) and a new paragraph (b) to the definition of release in § 120.50 in order to clarify what constitutes a release of technical data, a controlled event requiring authorization from the Department, and the provision of access information that may result in the release of technical data. Paragraph (a)(3) makes it a release of technical data to use access information to cause or enable a foreign person to access, view, or possess technical data in unencrypted form. Paragraph (a)(4) makes it a release of technical data to use access information in a foreign country to cause technical data to be in unencrypted form, including when such actions are taken by U.S. persons abroad. Most U.S. persons will be authorized to release the technical data abroad to themselves or over their employer's virtual private network through the exemption at ITAR § 125.4(b)(9).
The 2015 proposed rule proposed a new paragraph (a)(5) to make it a release to provide access information to a foreign person that can cause or enable access, viewing, or possession of technical data in unencrypted form. It also proposed a Note to paragraph (a) in order to clarify the license requirement regarding technical data secured by the access information when a release occurs under the proposed paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), or (a)(5).
In a change from the 2015 proposed rule, the Department now includes at paragraph (b) language derived from the proposed paragraph (a)(5) and Note included in that draft. The new paragraph (b) clarifies that the provision of access information to a foreign person is not itself a controlled event; there is no need for an application by the access information provider, or for the Department to issue an authorization, for the provision of access information. However, in order for the Department to effectively control the release of technical data to a foreign person in certain circumstances, paragraph (b) requires an authorization for a release of technical data to a foreign person before providing the access information to that foreign person, if that access information can cause or enable access, viewing, or possession of the unencrypted technical data. In the absence of an authorization for the release of technical data in such circumstances, the provision of access information to a foreign person is a violation of ITAR § 127.1(b)(1) for failure to abide by a rule or regulation contained in this subchapter.
Furthermore, causing or enabling a foreign person to access, view, or possess unencrypted technical data may constitute a separate violation of ITAR § 127.1(a), if the exporter (or reexporter or retransferrer) in question has not received prior authorization from the Department in the form of a license or other authorization (
The Department recognizes that the 2015 proposed rule contained draft language for a new § 127.1(b)(4) that would have listed the types of controlled events involving the secured unclassified technical data described in this interim final rule's § 120.54(a)(5). The Department did not receive any public comments on this proposed amendment. Nevertheless, once the Department decided to establish a new definition for “access information” in § 120.55 that is distinct from the definition of technical data in § 121.10, it seemed more appropriate to include descriptions of the relevant controlled events under the definition of release in § 120.50 because that provision was added to the ITAR in order to describe more effectively the controlled disclosure of information. Moreover, this construction is analogous to how the EAR defines the term “access information” in EAR § 772.1 and uses that term in § 734.19 to describe controlled events related to “activities that are not exports, reexports, or retransfers” under § 734.18.
Finally, the Department adds and reserves §§ 120.52 and 120.53.
This rulemaking is exempt from section 553 (Rulemaking) and section 554 (Adjudications) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) as a military or foreign affairs function of the United States Government. Although the Department is of the opinion that this interim final rule is exempt from the rulemaking provisions of the APA, the Department published this rule as a proposed rule (80 FR 31525) with a 60-day provision for public comment, published an interim final rule (81 FR 35611) with a 30-day provision for public comment and three-month delayed effective date for certain provisions thereof, and now as another interim final rule with a 30-day provision for public comment and three-month delayed effective date for the provisions identified herein. Those publications were without prejudice to the Department's determination that controlling the import and export of defense services is a foreign affairs function.
Since the Department is of the opinion that this rulemaking is exempt from the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, there is no requirement for an analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This rulemaking does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 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.
For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (the “Act”), a major rule is a rule that the Administrator of the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs finds has resulted or is likely to result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and foreign markets.
The Department does not believe this rulemaking is a major rule within the meaning of the Act. The means of solving the issue of data protection are already both familiar to and extensively used by the affected public in protecting sensitive information.
This rulemaking will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributed impacts, and equity). The executive orders stress the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rulemaking has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rulemaking has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Department has reviewed the rulemaking in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rulemaking.
This final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771 because it is issued with respect to a military or foreign affairs function of the United States.
This rulemaking does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35; however, the Department seeks public comment on any unforeseen potential for increased burden.
Arms and munitions, Classified information, Exports.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, title 22, chapter I, subchapter M, part 120 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
Secs. 2, 38, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2797); 22 U.S.C. 2794; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; Pub. L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 1920; Pub. L. 111-266; Section 1261, Pub. L. 112-239; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129.
(a)
(6) The release of previously encrypted technical data as described in § 120.50(a)(3) and (4) of this subchapter.
(a)
The additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) The use of access information to cause or enable a foreign person, including yourself, to access, view, or possess unencrypted technical data; or
(4) The use of access information to cause technical data outside of the United States to be in unencrypted form.
(b) Authorization for a release of technical data to a foreign person is required to provide access information to that foreign person, if that access information can cause or enable access, viewing, or possession of the unencrypted technical data.
(a)
(a) The following activities are not exports, reexports, retransfers, or temporary imports:
(1) Launching a spacecraft, launch vehicle, payload, or other item into space.
(2) Transmitting or otherwise transferring technical data to a U.S. person in the United States from a person in the United States.
(3) Transmitting or otherwise transferring within the same foreign country technical data between or among only U.S. persons, so long as the transmission or transfer does not result in a release to a foreign person or
(4) Shipping, moving, or transferring defense articles between or among the United States as defined in § 120.13 of this subchapter.
(5) Sending, taking, or storing technical data that is:
(i) Unclassified;
(ii) Secured using end-to-end encryption;
(iii) Secured using cryptographic modules (hardware or software) compliant with the Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 140-2 (FIPS 140-2) or its successors, supplemented by software implementation, cryptographic key management, and other procedures and controls that are in accordance with guidance provided in current U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) publications, or by other cryptographic means that provide security strength that is at least comparable to the minimum 128 bits of security strength achieved by the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES-128);
(iv) Not intentionally sent to a person in or stored in a country proscribed in § 126.1 of this subchapter or the Russian Federation; and
Data in-transit via the internet is not deemed to be stored.
(v) Not sent from a country proscribed in § 126.1 of this subchapter or the Russian Federation.
(b)(1) For purposes of this section, end-to-end encryption is defined as:
(i) The provision of cryptographic protection of data, such that the data is not in an unencrypted form, between an originator (or the originator's in-country security boundary) and an intended recipient (or the recipient's in-country security boundary); and
(ii) The means of decryption are not provided to any third party.
(2) The originator and the intended recipient may be the same person. The intended recipient must be the originator, a U.S. person in the United States, or a person otherwise authorized to receive the technical data, such as by a license or other approval pursuant to this subchapter.
(c) The ability to access technical data in encrypted form that satisfies the criteria set forth in paragraph (a)(5) of this section does not constitute the release or export of such technical data.
Access information is information that allows access to encrypted technical data subject to this subchapter in an unencrypted form. Examples include decryption keys, network access codes, and passwords.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel on all waters of the Main Branch of the Chicago River 600 feet west of the N Orleans Street Bridge and 1000 feet east of the N Columbus Street Bridge. This action is necessary and intended to protect the safety of life and property on navigable waters prior to, during, and immediately after firework displays. During the enforcement periods listed below, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.
The regulation in 33 CFR 165.930 will be enforced from 11:30 p.m. on December 31, 2019 through 12:15 a.m. on January 1, 2020.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email LT Tiziana C. Garner, Waterways Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (630) 986-2155, email
The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel on all waters of the main branch of the Chicago River 600 feet west of the N Orleans Street Bridge and 1000 feet east of the N Columbus Street bridge. During the enforcement period, no vessel may transit this regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or an on-scene representative.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.930 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie zone in Mackinac City, MI. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect the public and private contractors from potential hazards associated with remotely operated underwater vehicle operations in the Straits of Mackinac. During the effective dates of the rule, vessels will not be able to operate in certain U.S. navigable waters in the Straits of Mackinac within 500 yards of the Tug Nancy Anne and Deck Barge MM-142 without authorization from the Captain of the Port.
This rule is effective without actual notice from December 26, 2019 through December 27, 2019. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from December 19, 2019 through December 26, 2019.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email LT Sean V. Murphy, Sector Sault Sainte Marie Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard at telephone (906) 635-3223, and email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details of the specific dates, vessel names, and safety zone distances concerning the safety zone were not finalized within a sufficient time to allow for notice and a subsequent 30-day comment period before commencement of remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV) operations. Delaying this rule to allow for a notice and comment period would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public from the potential hazards associated with the ROV operations.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with ROV operations starting December 19, 2019, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-yard radius of all U.S. navigable waters of the Tug Nancy Anne and Deck Barge MM-142 conducting ROV operations. This rule is needed to protect personnel and vessels in the navigable waters within the safety zones while ROV operations is conducted.
This rule establishes a safety zone from December 19, 2019 through December 27, 2019. The safety zones will cover all navigable waters within 500 yards of the Tug Nancy Anne and Deck Barge MM-142. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel and vessels in these navigable waters while vessels conduct ROV operations. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size and location of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of the Straits of Mackinac. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Coast Guard Environmental Planning Policy, COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit entry within 500 yards of U.S. navigable waters of a vessel and barge being used to conduct ROV operations. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Before a vessel operator may enter or operate within the safety zone, they must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie, or his on-scene representative via VHF Channel 16 or telephone at (906) 635-3233. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all orders given to them by the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie or his on-scene representative.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, provided by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), through a letter dated September 13, 2018, for inclusion into the Tennessee SIP. This action pertains to the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2015 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA. TDEC certified that the Tennessee SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Tennessee. EPA has determined that portions of Tennessee's SIP submission satisfy certain required infrastructure elements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
This rule will be effective January 27, 2020.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Sean Lakeman, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, 30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at
On October 1, 2015 (published October 26, 2015,
This action is approving Tennessee's September 13, 2018,
In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on October 9, 2019 (84 FR 54080), EPA proposed to approve Tennessee's September 13, 2018, revision submitted to EPA through TDEC for the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The NPRM provides additional detail regarding the background and rationale for EPA's action. Comments on the NPRM were due on or before November 8, 2019. EPA received no comments on the NPRM.
With the exception of interstate transport provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 and 2) pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states and PSD provisions related to major sources under sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) and 110(a)(2)(J), EPA is approving Tennessee's September 13, 2018, infrastructure submission for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the above described infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is approving Tennessee's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the submission is consistent with section 110 of the CAA.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 24, 2020. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is determining that the Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, Colorado nonattainment area (Denver Area) failed to attain the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date for “Moderate” nonattainment areas. The effect of failing to attain by the attainment date is that the area will be reclassified by operation of law to “Serious” upon the effective date of this final reclassification action. Along with the reclassification, the EPA is finalizing deadlines for submittal of SIP revisions required under the new classification and implementation of related control requirements. This final action is necessary to fulfill the EPA's statutory obligation to determine whether the Denver Area attained the NAAQS by the attainment date, and, within six months of the attainment date, to publish a document in the
This rule is effective on January 27, 2020.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under docket ID no. EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0354. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Abby Fulton, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6563,
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our August 15, 2019 proposal, in which we proposed to determine that the Denver Area failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
The EPA held a public hearing on the proposal at the Denver regional offices on September 6, 2019 and accepted written public comments through September 16, 2019. All comments received during the public comment period, as well as pertinent comments submitted in response to the EPA's November 2018 proposal to grant the State of Colorado's request for a 1-year attainment date extension for the Denver Area (which was part of a national rulemaking concerning Moderate areas) may be found in the electronic docket for this final action. Key comments and the agency's responses are included in this section, below. A Response to Comments document including all significant comments received on the EPA's proposal and the agency's responses to those comments is in the docket for this rulemaking. To access the full set of comments received and the Response to Comments, please go to
In accordance with CAA section 181(b)(2), the EPA is finalizing its proposed determination that the Denver Area failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2018.
The EPA received about 460 comments on its proposal to determine that the Denver Area failed to attain by the applicable attainment date and to reclassify the area to Serious nonattainment. We also received and are considering in this action 14 pertinent comments on our previous proposal to grant the State's since-withdrawn request for an attainment date extension.
With respect to the influence of international emissions on a nonattainment area, CAA section 179B(b)
As to exceptional events, an acceptable demonstration must meet requirements of the Exceptional Events Rule, promulgated at 40 CFR 50.14. Under this rule, demonstrating that an event meets these requirements begins with a state identifying monitoring data that were affected by an exceptional event and resulted in exceedances or violations of any NAAQS for purposes of a regulatory determination. Once a state identifies such data, it may choose to notify the Regional EPA office of its intent to submit an exceptional event demonstration.
As some commenters note, the EPA previously reviewed two exceptional event demonstrations submitted as a part of Colorado's now-withdrawn request for an attainment date extension.
Finally, the EPA disagrees with the assertion that section 181(b)(2) affords the agency the discretion to consider other factors besides an area's air quality design value in determining whether an area attained by its attainment date. But even if the commenters' interpretations were correct, for the reasons explained above and in the Response to Comments, it would be reasonable in this case not to exercise that discretion, and to consider only the design value.
As to loss of highway funds, the mere reclassification of an area does not
The EPA received comments on the proposed Serious area deadlines for submitting SIP and RACT revisions, and on the deadlines for implementation of RACT. After full consideration of those comments, and pursuant to CAA section 182(i), the EPA is finalizing the following SIP submission due dates and RACT implementation deadlines for Colorado. The due date for Serious area SIP revisions, including RACT measures tied to attainment for the Denver Area, will be August 3, 2020. That is also the implementation deadline for RACT measures tied to attainment. For SIP revisions for RACT measures not tied to attainment, the EPA is finalizing a due date of March 23, 2021 and an implementation deadline of July 20, 2021. All of these deadlines are consistent with deadlines finalized in the August 2019 national rulemaking that reclassified several other areas classified as Moderate to Serious for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
With regard to the requests for a period of 18 months or longer for submitting SIP revisions, the governor's letter withdrawing the extension request committed to “moving aggressively forward and without delay in our efforts to reduce ground level ozone concentrations in the Denver Metro/North Front Range nonattainment area.” We will work with Colorado's air planning agencies as they develop additional attainment plans. Furthermore, Colorado has known that revised implementation plans would be due soon after reclassification, in order to provide for expeditious attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and has had the opportunity to make progress on plan development activities before issuance of this final action. Colorado was aware of proposed Serious SIP due dates since the November 14, 2018 proposed DAAD, which is evident from the comment letter submitted by CDPHE in connection with that proceeding.
CDPHE preferred a RACT implementation deadline of January 1, 2024, as proposed in the national notice, to allow more time for Colorado to identify, adopt, and implement measures for ozone precursor reductions. One commenter agreed with this deadline and claimed that it would be “unlikely that Colorado [could] consider any measures not already in place for sources over 100 tpy” with an implementation date of August 3, 2020. Other commenters supported the proposal to adopt the same SIP submission due dates and implementation deadlines that were finalized in the EPA's August 2019 national rulemaking, citing to the need for national consistency under Section 182(i).
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA not already approved by the Office of Management and Budget.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The determination of failure to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS (and resulting reclassification) does not in and of itself create any new requirements beyond what is mandated by the CAA. Instead, this rulemaking only makes factual determinations, and does not directly regulate any entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, tribes, or the relationship between the national government and the states and tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
This action does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods.
This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular applicability. The rule makes factual determinations for specific entities and does not directly regulate any entities. The determination of failure to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS (and resulting reclassification) does not in itself create any new requirements beyond what is mandated by the CAA.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 24, 2020. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Designations and classifications, Greenhouse gases, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 81 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Interim final rule.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) is updating its regulations to reflect required annual inflation-related increases to the civil monetary penalties in its regulations, pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1)
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at the address above between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
(3) Electronically through
Comments submitted in response to this Notice will be made available to the public through
Stephanie Soper, Law Office Manager, Office of General Counsel, at 202-606-6747 or email to
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) is a federal agency that engages millions of Americans in service through its AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and Volunteer Generation Fund programs to further its mission to improve lives, strengthen communities, and foster
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (the “Act”), which is intended to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain the deterrent effect of such penalties, requires agencies to adjust the civil monetary penalties for inflation annually.
CNCS has two civil monetary penalties in its regulations. A civil monetary penalty under the Act is a penalty, fine, or other sanction that is for a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law or has a maximum amount provided for by federal law and is assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to federal law and is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the federal courts. (
The inflation adjustment for each applicable civil monetary penalty is determined using the percent increase in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October of the year in which the amount of each civil money penalty was most recently established or modified. In the December 16, 2019, OMB Memo for the Heads of Executive Agencies and Departments, M-20-05,
CNCS identified two civil penalties in its regulations: (1) The penalty associated with Restrictions on Lobbying (45 CFR 1230.400) and (2) the penalty associated with the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (45 CFR 2554.1).
The civil monetary penalties related to Restrictions on Lobbying (Section 319, Pub. L. 101-121; 31 U.S.C. 1352) range from $20,134 to $201,340. Using the 2020 multiplier, the new range of possible civil monetary penalties is from $20,489 to $204,892.
The Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-509) civil monetary penalty has an upper limit of $11,463. Using the 2020 multiplier, the new upper limit of the civil monetary penalty is $11,665.
This final rule adjusts the civil monetary penalty amounts related to Restrictions on Lobbying (45 CFR 1230.400) and the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (45 CFR 2554.1). The range of civil monetary penalties related to Restrictions on Lobbying increase from “$20,134 to $201,340” to “$20,489 to $204,892.” The civil monetary penalties for the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 increase from “up to $11,463” to “up to $11,665.”
CNCS finds, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), that there is good cause to except this rule from the public notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Because CNCS is implementing a final rule pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, which requires CNCS to update its regulations based on a prescribed formula, CNCS has no discretion in the nature or amount of the change to the civil monetary penalties. Therefore, notice and comment for these proscribed updates is impracticable and unnecessary. As an interim final rule, no further regulatory action is required for the issuance of this legally binding rule. If you would like to provide technical comments, however, they may be submitted until January 27, 2020.
CNCS has determined that making technical changes to the amount of civil monetary penalties in its regulations does not trigger any requirements under procedural statutes and Executive Orders that govern rulemaking procedures.
This rule is effective January 15, 2020. The adjusted civil penalty amounts apply to civil penalties assessed on or after January 15, 2020, when the violation occurred after November 2, 2015. If the violation occurred prior to November 2, 2015, or a penalty was assessed prior to August 1, 2016, the pre-adjustment civil penalty amounts in effect prior to August 1, 2106, will apply.
Government contracts, Grant programs, Loan programs, Lobbying, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Claims, Fraud, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Penalties.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 12651c(c), the Corporation for National and Community Service amends chapters XII and XXV, title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
Section 319, Pub. L. 101-121 (31 U.S.C. 1352); Pub. L. 93-113; 42 U.S.C. 4951,
Pub. L. 99-509, Secs. 6101-6104, 100 Stat. 1874 (31 U.S.C. 3801-3812); 42 U.S.C. 12651c-12651d.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; trip limit reduction.
NMFS reduces the commercial trip limit of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel in the southern zone of the Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ) to 1,500 lb (680 kg) in round or gutted weight per day. This commercial trip limit reduction is necessary to maximize the socioeconomic benefits of the fishery.
This temporary rule is effective from 6 a.m. eastern time on December 24, 2019, until 12:01 a.m. eastern time on March 1, 2020.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish in the Atlantic includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia on the east coast of Florida, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils 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. All weights described for the Atlantic migratory group of Spanish mackerel (Atlantic Spanish mackerel) apply as either round or gutted weight.
For management purposes, the commercial sector of Atlantic Spanish mackerel is divided into northern and southern zones. The southern zone consists of Federal waters off South Carolina, Georgia, and the east coast of Florida. The southern zone boundaries for Atlantic Spanish mackerel extend from the border of North Carolina and South Carolina (which is a line extending in a direction of 135°34′55″ from true north beginning at 33°51′07.9″ N lat. and 78°32′32.6″ W long. to the intersection point with the outward boundary of the EEZ) to the border of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida (at 25°20′24″ N lat.).
The southern zone commercial quota for Atlantic Spanish mackerel is 2,667,330 lb (1,209,881 kg). Seasonally variable trip limits are based on an adjusted commercial quota of 2,417,330 lb (1,096,482 kg). The adjusted commercial quota is calculated to allow continued harvest in the southern zone at a set rate for the remainder of the current fishing year, through February 29, 2020, in accordance with 50 CFR 622.385(b)(2).
As specified at 50 CFR 622.385(b)(1)(ii)(B), after 75 percent of the adjusted commercial quota of Atlantic Spanish mackerel is reached or is projected to be reached, Atlantic Spanish mackerel in or from the EEZ in the southern zone may not be possessed on board or landed from a vessel that has been issued a Federal permit for Atlantic Spanish mackerel in amounts exceeding 1,500 lb (680 kg) per day.
NMFS has determined that 75 percent of the adjusted commercial quota for Atlantic Spanish mackerel has been reached. Accordingly, the commercial trip limit of 1,500 lb (680 kg) per day applies to Atlantic Spanish mackerel harvested in or from the EEZ in the southern zone effective from 6 a.m. eastern time on December 24, 2019, until 12:01 a.m. eastern time on March 1, 2020, unless changed by subsequent notification in the
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Atlantic Spanish mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.385(b)(1)(ii)(B) 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 opportunity for comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately reduce the trip limit for the commercial sector for Atlantic Spanish mackerel constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and the opportunity for public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rules implementing the commercial quotas and trip limits have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the trip limit reduction.
Prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest, because any delay in the trip limit reduction of the commercial harvest could result in the commercial quota being exceeded. There is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the Atlantic Spanish mackerel resource, because the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require additional time and could potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; correction
NMFS published a final rule that implemented Amendment 28 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan in the
Effective January 1, 2020.
Gretchen Hanshew, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115, phone: 206-526-6147, or email:
Effective January 1, 2020, in rule document 2019-24684 at 84 FR 63966 in the issue of November 19, 2019:
(e) * * *
(5) 46°00.83′ N lat., 124°36.78′ W long.;
(f) * * *
(22) 40°32.68′ N lat., 125°05.63′ W long.;
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of Personnel Management.
Proposed rule with request for comments.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing regulations to give agencies the discretion to reinstate certain former Federal employees without competition to positions at any grade level for which the individual is qualified. Agencies will have greater flexibility in recruiting back to Government service former Federal employees who have developed enhanced or higher-level skill-sets than they had when they left government. Individuals seeking to rejoin the Federal workforce may do so more easily and at grade levels commensurate with the skills and experience they actually possess (and be compensated at such grade levels).
Comments must be received on or before February 24, 2020.
You may submit comments, identified by the docket number or Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) for this proposed rulemaking, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Michelle Glynn, Telephone: 202-606-1571, Fax: 202-606-2329, TDD: 202-418-3134, or email:
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is exercising its authority under 5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302 in proposing to revise part 335, title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), to change the criteria for how an agency may reinstate certain former Federal employees to a position in the competitive service. Under current rules, an agency may reinstate an individual, without competition, only to a position at a grade level that is no higher than the grade level of a position the individual held on a permanent basis in the competitive service. Reinstatement to a higher-graded position, or to a position with greater promotion potential, requires competition under 5 CFR part 335
Oftentimes, when an individual leaves Federal service, he or she acquires skills and/or experience that may qualify the individual for a position at a higher grade level than the one the individual held prior to leaving government. The proposed rules place these reinstatement actions under
(1) Been voluntarily separated from his or her most recent career or career-conditional appointment for at least 1 year, and
(2) Received a rating of record for his or her most recent career or career-conditional position of at least Fully Successful (or equivalent).
OPM is proposing that individuals who voluntarily separate must wait 1 year to be eligible for a higher-graded position under this authority in order to provide consistency with the general qualification requirements for advancement to a higher grade. OPM's government-wide qualification standards require that competitive service employees have 1 year of specialized experience before being promoted to the next highest grade level. The proposed 1-year requirement will prevent situations in which employees seeking a promotion quit and get reinstated to a higher-graded position (in essence a promotion) prior to meeting the specialized experience requirement. Thus, the proposed rules benefit both Federal agencies and former Federal employees seeking reemployment with the government at a level commensurate with each individual's actual skill and/or experience level, while preserving a measure of fairness with respect to current employees.
OPM is proposing that individuals who did not receive a rating of record for his or her most recent career or career-conditional position of at least Fully Successful (or equivalent) are not eligible for reinstatement without competition under this rule because if the individual was not performing to expectations at the time s/he left Federal service, that rationale for liberalizing the rules for re-entry would not be present, and we would want agencies to put the candidate through a more rigorous
For individuals who resigned and did not wait 1 year or more before applying for reinstatement, or for individuals who did not receive a rating of record for his or her most recent career or career-conditional position of at least Fully Successful (or equivalent), the proposed rule will require competition for higher graded positions, or positions with greater promotion potential. However, the individuals remain eligible for reinstatement without competition for positions with no higher grade or with no more promotion potential than a position previously held by the individual on a permanent basis in the competitive service.
The specific proposed changes are as follows:
OPM is proposing to modify current § 335.103(c)(1)(vi), by requiring competition under this part for an individual seeking reinstatement, within 1 calendar year from the date of his or her separation, to a position at a higher grade level or promotion potential than previously held, or for an individual who did not receive a rating of record of Fully Successful (or equivalent).
New paragraph § 335.103(c)(3)(viii) creates as a discretionary action that is not subject to competitive procedures reinstatement to a position at a higher grade level or promotion potential than previously held provided the individual resigned 1 year or more prior to the date he or she applies for reinstatement, and that the individual received a rating of record for his or her most recent career or career-conditional position of at least Fully Successful (or equivalent).
OPM is proposing these changes under Civil Service Rules II and VII, codified at 5 CFR parts 2 and 7, to establish and administer a system that provides for career appointments for former employees eligible for career appointment upon reinstatement.
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it applies only to Federal agencies and employees.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by OMB.
This proposed rule is not expected to be subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because this proposed rule is expected to be related to agency organization, management, or personnel.
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This regulation meets the applicable standard set forth in section 3(a) and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 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.
This action pertains to agency management, personnel and organization and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of nonagency 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 (SBREFA)). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.
This rule does not impose any new reporting or record-keeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Government employees.
Accordingly, OPM proposed to amend 5 CFR part 335 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 2301, 2302, 3301, 3302, 3330; E.O. 10577, E.O. 11478, 3 CFR 1966-1970, Comp., page 803, unless otherwise noted, E.O. 13087; and E.O. 13152, 3 CFR 19554-58 Comp., p.218; 5 U.S.C. 3304(f), and Pub. L. 106-117.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) Reinstatement to a permanent or temporary position at a higher grade or with more promotion potential than a position previously held on a permanent basis in the competitive service if the individual did not wait 1 year or more after separating from Federal employment before applying for reinstatement, or did not receive a rating of record for his or her most recent career or career-conditional position of at least Fully Successful (or equivalent).
(viii) Reinstatement in accordance with 5 CFR part 315 to any position in the competitive service for which the individual is qualified at a higher grade level or with more promotion potential than a career or career-conditional position previously held by the individual; provided,—the individual has been voluntarily separated for at least 1 year before being reinstated, and the individual must have received a rating of record for his or her most recent career or career-conditional
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its regulations that govern scholarship programs to certain health care professionals. This rulemaking would implement the mandates of the VA MISSION Act of 2018 by establishing a Specialty Education Loan Repayment Program, which would assist VA in meeting the staffing needs of VA physicians in medical specialties for which VA has determined that recruitment or retention of qualified personnel is difficult.
Comments must be received on or before February 24, 2020.
Written comments may be submitted through
Whitney Henderson, Manager, Education Loan Repayment Services, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420,
On June 6, 2018, section 303 of Public Law 115-182, the John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018, or the VA MISSION Act of 2018, amended title 38 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) by establishing new sections 7691 through 7697 and created a new student loan repayment program known as the Specialty Education Loan Repayment Program (SELRP). The SELRP would serve as an incentive for physicians starting or currently in residency programs in medical specialties for which VA has determined that recruitment and retention of qualified personnel is difficult to work for VA at VA facilities that need more physicians with that medical specialty after the individual completes their residency program. VA would determine the anticipated needs for medical specialties during a period of two to six years in the future. In taking this proactive approach, VA would commence recruitment for physicians in these specialties before the projected need to help ensure adequate health care coverage for VA beneficiaries. This proposed rule would establish the requirements for the SELRP in proposed 38 CFR 17.525 through 17.531.
Proposed § 17.525 would establish the purpose of the SELRP. We would state that the SELRP is an incentive program for certain individuals to meet VA's need for physicians in medical specialties for which VA determines that recruitment and retention of qualified personnel is difficult. We would also state that assistance under the SELRP may be in addition to other assistance available to individuals under the Educational Assistance Program under 38 U.S.C. 7601. This section would be in alignment with 38 U.S.C. 7691 and 7692.
Proposed § 17.526 would be the definitions section applicable to §§ 17.525 through 17.530. The term educational loan is defined in § 17.641 for the Program for the Repayment of Educational Loans for Certain VA Psychiatrists (PREL). We would use this definition, with minimal edits by eliminating references to the PREL, to state that the term applies to the SELRP, to maintain consistency in application of similar VA scholarship programs and to ease the implementation of such programs by VA personnel.
We propose to define the term SELRP to mean the Specialty Education Loan Repayment Program established in §§ 17.525 through 17.530.
To define the term State, we would refer to 38 U.S.C. 101(20), or a political subdivision of such a State. We propose to provide this definition to inform the potential participant where the period of obligated service would be performed.
We would also define the term “VA” to mean the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed § 17.527 would establish the eligibility criteria for participants of the SELRP. Proposed paragraph (a) would state that to be eligible to participate in the SELRP, an individual will be eligible for appointment under 38 U.S.C. 7401 to work as a physician in a medical specialty for which VA determines that recruitment or retention of qualified personnel is difficult. We would add that in determining staffing needs, VA will consider the anticipated needs of VA for a period of two to six years in the future, and utilize staffing shortage occupation, vacancy data, and national health care workforce and other relevant data in such determinations. VA will publish these vacancies in a notice in the
Proposed paragraph (b) would provide for instances where an individual applies for the SELRP before there is a posting of a residency match for the individual's medical specialty. See section 303(e) of the VA MISSION Act of 2018. We would state that an applicant may apply for the SELRP before receiving a residency match
Proposed paragraph (c) would state the order of preference for VA to select participants to the SELRP. This order of preference would reflect medically underserved locations where VA has identified a shortage of physicians. We would state that VA would give preference to eligible participants who are, or will be, participating in residency programs in health care facilities that are: Located in rural areas; Operated by Indian tribes, tribal organizations, or the Indian Health Services; or Are affiliated with underserved health care facilities of VA. VA would also give preference to eligible individuals who are veterans. Proposed paragraph (c) would be in alignment with 38 U.S.C. 7693(b).
Section 303 of the VA MISSION Act of 2018 did not establish an application procedure for the SELRP. To maintain consistency in the application process of similar VA scholarship programs and to ease the implementation such programs by VA personnel, we would mirror proposed § 17.528 to current § 17.643, Application for the Program for Repayment of Educational Loans for Certain VA Psychiatrists (PREL.) Consistent with § 17.643(a), proposed paragraph § 17.528(a) would state that a complete application for the SELRP consists of a completed application form, letters of reference, and personal statement.
Proposed paragraph § 17.528(b) would state what documents qualify as letters of reference. These documents would be those stated in § 17.643(a), however, we would not include as a reference a letter from the Program Director for the specialty in which the applicant is training, as stated in § 17.643(b)(1), because an applicant for the SELRP cannot apply during their fellowship. We would state in proposed paragraph (b)(1) that a reference includes one letter of reference from the Program Director of the core program in which the applicant is training, which indicates that the applicant is in good to excellent standing, or, for individuals who have yet to initiate training, a letter of reference from a facility member or dean. Proposed paragraphs § 17.528(b)(2) and (b)(3) would restate § 17.643(b)(2) and (b)(3) with minor edits to apply to the SELRP. We would state that references include one or more letters of reference from faculty members under which the applicant trained; and one letter of reference from a peer colleague who is familiar with the practice and character of the applicant.
Proposed paragraph § 17.528(c) would state what constitutes as a personal statement for purposes of the SELRP. We would restate § 17.643(c). We would edit current § 17.643(c)(1)(ii) by requesting that the applicant provide their interest in working at a particular medical specialty and underserved area. This would facilitate placement of the individual in an underserved location that holds interest to the applicant and for which VA has a vacancy in the medical specialty. We would not restate current § 17.643(c)(2)(i) because the applicant may participate in any program under 38 U.S.C. 7601. We would also make one minor edit in from current § 17.643(c)(2)(ii) in proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i) to state that the covered loan must be specific to education that was required, used, and qualified the applicant for appointment as a physician.
Proposed § 17.529 would state the award procedures for the SELRP. Proposed paragraph § 17.529(a) would state the repayment amount for the educational loan. We would state in paragraph (a)(1) that VA may pay no more than $40,000 in educational loan repayment for each year of obligated service for a period not to exceed four years for a total payment of $160,000.00. The yearly amount may depend on the total amount of the educational loan of the individual. We would add in proposed paragraph (a)(2) that an educational loan repayment may not exceed the actual amount of principal and interest on an educational loan or loans. Proposed paragraph (a) would be in alignment with 38 U.S.C. 7694.
Section 303 of the VA MISSION Act of 2018 did not contain a provision for the payment of the SELRP. To maintain consistency in the application processes for similar VA scholarship programs and to ease the implementation of such programs by VA, we would mirror the payment provision in § 17.645(b) for the SELRP in proposed paragraph § 17.529(b) with one minor edit. We would change the term depending on the acceptance of conditions to depending on the terms of the agreement to maintain consistency in terminology in the SELRP.
Proposed paragraph § 17.529(c) would provide for a waiver of the maximum amount of repayment of the applicant's educational loans under certain circumstances. We would state that a waiver may be available if VA determines that there is a shortage of qualified employees due to either the location of where the participant will serve the period of obligated service or due to the requirements of the position (medical specialty) that the participant will hold in VA. Proposed § 17.529(c) would include the caveat that the waiver may not exceed the actual amount of the principal and the interest on the participant's loans payable to or for that participant. This proposed paragraph (c) would be in alignment with 38 U.S.C. 7694(c)(2).
Proposed § 17.530 would contain the requirements in the agreement that an applicant must sign and the terms of obligated services that are required as participants of the SELRP. As a condition of participating in the SELRP, and participant must agree, in writing, to the conditions stated in proposed paragraph (a). These conditions are a restatement of 38 U.S.C. 7696(a). We would state that a participant must obtain a license to practice medicine in a State; Successfully complete post-graduate training leading to eligibility for board certification in a medical specialty; Serve as a full-time clinical practice employee of VA for 12 months for every $40,000.00 that the participant receives payment for the SELRP, however, the participant must serve for a period of no fewer than 24 months; and Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, begin obligated service as a full-time VA employee no later than 60 days after completing residency in the medical specialty described in § 17.527(a)(1).
Section 303 of the VA MISSION Act of 2018 did not provide a provision for when the participant's obligated service would begin. We believe that establishing such provision via regulation would be helpful to the applicant in knowing the expectations of the SELRP up front. We would mirror proposed paragraph § 17.530(b)(1) to § 17.646(a) by stating that a participant's obligated service will begin on the date
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would restate 38 U.S.C. 7695 with minor edits. We would state that participants of the SELRP may select from a list of VA medical facilities provided by VA to serve the period of obligated service. In alignment with similar scholarship programs, we would add that VA reserves the right to make final decisions on the location and position of the obligated service. See 38 CFR 17.646(c). VA believes that is necessary to reserve the right to make final decisions on the location to achieve the intent of the VA Mission Act of 2018. VA must be able to have control over where it places the individuals to ensure VA beneficiaries' health care needs are met in locations that are within close proximity of the beneficiaries' residence.
Proposed § 17.530(c) would restate 38 U.S.C. 7696(b) with minor edits for clarity. We would state that if a participant receives an accredited fellowship in a medical specialty other than the medical specialty described in § 17.527(a)(1), the participant may request, in writing, a delayed commencement of the period of obligated service until after the participant completes the fellowship. However, the period of obligated service will begin no later than 60 days after completion of such fellowship in the medical specialty described in § 17.527(a)(1).
Proposed § 17.531 would state the consequences for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the SELRP. This proposed section would mirror 38 U.S.C. 7696(c) with no edits. We would state that a participant of the SELRP who fails to satisfy the period of obligated service will owe the United States government an amount determined by the formula A = B × ((T − S) ÷ T)), where: “A” is the amount the participant owes the United States government; “B” is the sum of all payments to or for the participant under the SELRP; “T” is the number of months in the period of obligated service of the participant; “S” is the number of whole months of such period of obligated service served by the participant. For example, if a participant agrees to a period of obligated service of 24 months, but only served 12 months and agreed to receive an amount of $80,000 for 24 months of obligated service, the total amount owed would be calculated as follows: A = 80,000 × ((24 − 12) ÷ 24)), total amount owed the Federal Government would be $40,000.
The Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be revised by this proposed rulemaking, would represent the exclusive legal authority on this subject. No contrary rules or procedures would be authorized. All VA guidance would be read to conform with this proposed rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance would be superseded by this rulemaking.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that VA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This proposed rule includes provisions constituting new collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 that require approval by the OMB. Accordingly, under 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), VA has submitted a copy of this rulemaking action to OMB for review.
OMB assigns control numbers to collections of information it approves. VA 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. Proposed § 17.528 contains a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. If OMB does not approve the collection of information as requested, VA will immediately remove the provision containing a collection of information or take such other action as is directed by OMB.
Comments on the collection of information contained in this proposed rule should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies sent by mail or hand delivery to the Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Room 1064, Washington, DC 20420; fax to (202) 273-9026; or through
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of information contained in this proposed rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
VA considers comments by the public on proposed collections of information in—
• Evaluating whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of VA, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluating the accuracy of VA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimizing the burden of the collections 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 collections of information contained in § 17.528 are described immediately following this paragraph, under their respective titles. For the new proposed collection of information below, VA used general wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to estimate the respondents' costs associated with completing the information collection. According to the latest available BLS data, the mean hourly wage of full-time wage and salary workers was $101.63 based on the BLS wage code—“29-1069 All Occupations.” This information was taken from the following website:
CFR provision: 38 CFR 17. 528.
The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The provisions associated with this rulemaking are not processed by any other entities outside of VA. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking would be exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget has designated this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
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.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
There are no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for this rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Medical and dental schools, Scholarships and fellowships, Veterans.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Pamela Powers, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on November 5, 2019, for publication.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend 38 CFR part 17 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.
Sections 17.525 through 17.531 are also issued under 38 U.S.C. 7691 through 7697.
The purpose of §§ 17.525 through 17.531 is to establish the Specialty Education Loan Repayment Program (SELRP). The SELRP an incentive program for certain individuals to meet VA's need for physicians in medical specialties for which VA determines that recruitment and retention of qualified personnel is difficult. Assistance under the SELRP may be in addition to other assistance available to individuals under the Educational Assistance Program under 38 U.S.C. 7601.
The following definitions apply to §§ 17.525 through 17.530.
(1) Loans obtained from family members, relatives, or friends;
(2) Loans made prior to, or after, the individual's qualifying education;
(3) Any portion of a consolidated loan that is not specifically identified with the education and purposes for which the SELRP may be authorized, such as home or auto loans merged with educational loans;
(4) Loans for which an individual incurred a service obligation for repayment or agreed to service for future cancellation;
(5) Credit card debt;
(6) Parent Plus Loans;
(7) Loans that have been paid in full;
(8) Loans that are in default, delinquent, not in a current payment status, or have been assumed by a collection agency;
(9) Loans not obtained from a bank, credit union, savings and loan association, not-for-profit organization, insurance company, school, and other financial or credit institution which is subject to examination and supervision in its capacity as a lending institution by an agency of the United States or of the state in which the lender has its principal place of business;
(10) Loans for which supporting documentation is not available;
(11) Loans that have been consolidated with loans of other individuals, such as spouses, children, friends, or other family member; or
(12) Home equity loans or other non-educational loans.
(a)
(1) Will be eligible for appointment under 38 U.S.C. 7401 to work as a physician in a medical specialty for which VA determines that recruitment or retention of qualified personnel is difficult. In determining staffing needs, VA will consider the anticipated needs of VA for a period of two to six years in the future. VA will publish these vacancies in a notice in the
(2) Owes any amount of principal or interest for an educational loan where the proceeds were used by or on behalf of the individual to pay costs relating to a course of medical education or training that leads to employment as a physician and;
(3) Is:
(i) Recently graduated from an accredited medical or osteopathic school and matched to an accredited residency program in a medical specialty designated by VA; or
(ii) A physician in training with more than 2 years remaining in such training.
(b)
(1) The applicant is matched with the residency; and
(2) VA has published the residency in a Notice in the
(c)
(1) Are, or will be, participating in residency programs in health care facilities that are:
(i) Located in rural areas;
(ii) Operated by Indian tribes, tribal organizations, or the Indian Health Services; or
(iii) Are affiliated with underserved health care facilities of VA.
(2) Veterans.
(a)
(b)
(1) One letter of reference from the Program Director of the core program in which the applicant is training, which indicates that the applicant is in good to excellent standing, or, for individuals who have yet to initiate training, a letter of reference from a faculty member or dean;
(2) One or more letters of reference from faculty members under which the applicant trained; and
(3) One letter of reference from a peer colleague who is familiar with the practice and character of the applicant.
(c)
(1) A cover letter that provides the following information:
(i) Why the applicant is interested in VA employment;
(ii) The applicant's interest in working at a particular medical specialty and underserved area;
(iii) Likely career goals, including career goals in VA; and
(iv) A brief summary of past employment or training and accomplishments, including any particular clinical areas of interest (
(2) The following information must be provided on a VA form or online collection system and is subject to VA verification:
(i) A summary of the applicant's educational debt, which includes the total debt amount and when the debt was acquired. The health professional debt covered the loan must be specific to education that was required, used, and qualified the applicant for appointment as a physician.
(ii) The name of the lending agency that provided the educational loan.
(3) A full curriculum vitae.
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number XXXX-XXXX.)
(a)
(2) An educational loan repayment may not exceed the actual amount of principal and interest on an educational loan or loans.
(b)
(c)
(a)
(1) Obtain a license to practice medicine in a State;
(2) Successfully complete post-graduate training leading to eligibility for board certification in a medical specialty;
(3) Serve as a full-time clinical practice employee of VA for 12 months for every $40,000.00 that the participant receives payment through the SELRP, however, the participant must serve for a period of no fewer than 24 months; and
(4) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, begin obligated service as a full-time VA employee no later than 60 days after completing residency in the medical specialty described in § 17.527(a)(1).
(b)
(2)
(c)
A participant of the SELRP who fails to satisfy the period of obligated service will owe the United States government an amount determined by the formula A = B × ((T−S) ÷ T)), where:
(a) “A” is the amount the participant owes the United States government.
(b) “B” is the sum of all payments to or for the participant under the SELRP.
(c) “T” is the number of months in the period of obligated service of the participant.
(d) “S” is the number of whole months of such period of obligated service served by the participant.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Connecticut that addresses the interstate transport of air pollution requirements of the Clean Air Act for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (
Written comments must be received on or before January 27, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0513 at
Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617) 918-1684, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On June 15, 2015, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of an interstate transport SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This interstate transport SIP, which we are herein proposing to approve, was submitted to address the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the level of the primary ozone standard from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm, based on a three-year average of the annual
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four elements related to the evaluation of impacts of interstate transport of air pollutants; in this rulemaking, we are addressing the first two elements; EPA addressed all other infrastructure SIP elements under section 110(a)(2) for Connecticut for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in separate rulemakings.
EPA developed technical information and related analyses to assist states with meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through SIPs and, as appropriate, to provide backstop federal implementation plans (FIPs) in the event that states failed to submit approvable SIPs.
A recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
The CSAPR Update used the same framework that was used by EPA in developing 2011 CSAPR.
To apply the first and second steps of the four-step interstate-transport framework to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA evaluated modeling projections for air-quality monitoring sites in 2017 and considered current (at the time) ozone monitoring data at these sites to identify receptors
On December 28, 2012, CT DEEP submitted most of its infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to EPA. On June 3, 2016, EPA fully approved most, and conditionally approved some portions, of that submittal.
In its June 2015 submittal, Connecticut examined the results of EPA's transport modeling for 2017 and ambient monitoring data at key downwind sites to demonstrate that the state meets its good neighbor requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. CT DEEP referenced modeling results for EPA's 2011 CSAPR, which showed that emissions from Connecticut were projected to have a maximum impact in 2018 of 0.41 ppb at the monitor in Suffolk County, NY, with impacts at all other monitors of concern being 0.08 ppb or less, well below the 1% screening threshold of 0.75 ppb for the 2008 NAAQS.
EPA's August 2016 CSAPR Update Modeling TSD also projected the largest contributions of emissions from Connecticut to nonattainment and maintenance receptors at well below the threshold of 1% of the NAAQS. Specifically, this modeling indicated that Connecticut's largest impact on any projected downwind nonattainment receptor in 2017 was 0.00 ppb and the largest impact on any projected downwind maintenance-only site was 0.46 ppb.
Connecticut examined the results of EPA's transport modeling for 2017 and CT DEEP projected state-emissions trends to demonstrate that the state meets its good-neighbor requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Based on their analysis, total NO
CT DEEP identified regulations that have been approved into the Connecticut SIP to provide for the control of nitrogen oxides (NO
In addition to these programs, CT DEEP noted that it implements regulations modeled after California's LEV program, has established a stringent new motor vehicle control program, and implements a statewide vehicle emission inspection and maintenance program and state and federal incentive programs for diesel vehicle retrofits and replacements. Connecticut also implements a variety of energy efficiency strategies, including its Comprehensive Energy Strategy20.
In light of the EPA's determination made in the CSAPR Update finding that emissions from Connecticut will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind states, we propose that Connecticut has met its CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) “good neighbor” SIP obligation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
EPA is proposing to approve Connecticut's June 15, 2015, SIP submission as meeting the CAA requirements of prongs 1 and 2 under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes to revise the chest jacket and spine box specifications for the Hybrid III 5th Percentile Female Test Dummy (HIII-5F) set forth in Part 572,
You should submit your comments early enough to be received not later than February 24, 2020.
You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• You may also call the Docket at 202-366-9826.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the docket number of this document.
For technical issues, you may contact Mr. Peter G. Martin, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone: 202-366-5668). For legal issues, you may contact Mr. John Piazza, Office of Chief Counsel (telephone: 202-366-2992) (fax: 202-366-3820). Address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590.
This document proposes changes to the Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female (HIII-5F) anthropomorphic test device (crash test dummy). The HIII-5F is used in frontal compliance crash tests and air bag static deployment tests, certification to which is required for certain vehicles by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, “
Among other things, Subpart O incorporates by reference several documents that specify the physical make-up of the dummy. This document proposes changes to the chest jacket and spine box specifications to address issues with the fit and availability of the jacket and a noise artifact from the spine box. Neither change is intended to impose new requirements on vehicle manufacturers.
The chest jacket is a sleeveless foam-filled vinyl zippered jacket that represents human flesh, including female breasts. The chest jacket may need to be replaced because it can shrink or otherwise fall out of specification or wear out with age. Since the introduction of the HIII-5F into Part 572 in 2000, none of the jackets that were manufactured met the jacket specifications specified in Part 572. Since around 2006, NHTSA, in its own compliance tests, has used the brand of dummy and jacket (either First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) or Denton ATD (Denton)) used by the vehicle manufacturer to certify the vehicle. However, these FTSS and Denton jackets are no longer being manufactured; manufacturers (or test laboratories) and NHTSA have, or will soon, run out of these jackets. In 2013, SAE
This NPRM proposes to adopt the jacket specifications described in J2921, as well as a few additional specifications. We believe that chest jackets that have been and are being manufactured to the SAE J2921 design would also conform to the proposed specifications but seek comment on whether this is accurate. NHTSA also believes that additional specifications are necessary to ensure a sufficient level of uniformity between jackets produced by different manufacturers when other manufacturers enter the market, and to prevent the variances in jacket designs that were problematic in the past from reoccurring.
We recognize that when the proposed jacket is used on an existing dummy, the dummy may require some amount of re-tuning or refurbishment to pass the Part 572 Subpart O qualifications tests, but this is commonplace when worn parts are replaced. NHTSA tentatively concludes that the proposed jacket specification would assure uniformity in the form, fit, and function of the HIII-5F. A benefit of this is that the agency would no longer have to maintain chest jackets of different designs and take steps to match the compliance test jacket with that specified by the vehicle manufacturers, thereby providing more objective test results. We also tentatively conclude that dummies fitted with chest jackets that satisfy the proposed specifications would perform equivalently to dummies fitted with the FTSS or Denton jackets that were previously used. We seek comment on all of these tentative conclusions.
The spine box is the dummy's steel backbone. It is located in the dummy's thorax, which consists of six bands that simulate human ribs. Since the mid-2000s, industry and NHTSA have been aware of a signal noise artifact in the signals from the accelerometers in the thorax during sled and crash tests originating in the spine box. The source of the noise is fasteners that become loose during normal use. In 2011 SAE published an information report for a spine box modification (SAE J2915 AUG2011,
We propose to adopt the SAE modification, details of which are specified within engineering drawings provided in the J2915 information report. The proposed revisions would add plates to the side of the spine box, with bolts countersunk into the plate to remove any play from the assembly. The modification does not affect or change the dummy's performance in any way (other than eliminate the potential for noise). The improved spine box addresses a shortcoming in the ATD's design that had to be addressed by end users disassembling the dummy, re-torqueing the relevant fasteners by hand before each test, and re-qualifying the dummy as needed. The improved spine box increases the quality of data and reduces maintenance and testing time.
NHTSA proposes a 45-day effective date following date of publication of a final rule to make available ATDs with the new chest jacket and spine box for use in agency testing. Manufacturers wishing to test with the proposed jacket and spine box should have no difficulty obtaining the necessary parts. We believe that the chest jackets that are currently being manufactured to meet the SAE J2921 specifications would also meet the proposed specifications. We also believe that the parts to implement the spine box fix are available, as are newly-manufactured replacement spine boxes that incorporate the fix.
In 2014, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) petitioned NHTSA to incorporate the new SAE jacket into Part 572 per SAE Information Report J2921 and revise the spine box as described in SAE Information Report J2915.
Today's NPRM proposes changes to the Hybrid III 5th percentile small female (HIII-5F) test dummy. The HIII-5F was added to Part 572 in 2000.
The HIII-5F chest jacket is a sleeveless foam-filled vinyl zippered jacket that represents human flesh, including female breasts. The chest jacket is zipped onto the dummy and covers the entire thorax, including the shoulder assembly. It is currently specified in the parts and drawings document in drawings 880105-355-E, 880105-356, 880105-423, and 880105-
This NPRM proposes changes to the chest jacket specifications to address known issues with the shape and availability of the jacket.
The chest jacket, along with the HIII-5F, was developed under the auspices of SAE.
The jackets FTSS and Denton produced did not conform to all aspects of the Part 572 specifications; in addition, jackets produced by each manufacturer also differed from each other. Both Transport Canada and the Alliance found dimensional differences between the two brands of jackets. In particular, the breast location differed, and the Denton jacket was longer.
The differences between the FTSS and Denton jackets, and between those jackets and the Part 572 specifications, are the result of a variety of factors. For one, the Subpart O jacket drawing, which consists of two sheets, contains errors and ambiguities. The dimensions for the breast locations are not consistent between the two sheets, and the overall shape is not consistent, either. These inconsistences and ambiguities contributed to dimensional differences between the FTSS and Denton jackets.
In addition, design choices by FTSS and Denton also contributed to the discrepancies. When NHTSA added the dummy and jacket to Part 572 in 2000, the engineering drawings for the jacket came from SAE. However, the jacket specifications did not match the actual jacket that FTSS was making. During the dummy development period, FTSS made a manufacturing decision to lower the breasts to change the lay of the shoulder belt.
In 2003, FTSS submitted a petition for rulemaking to revise the jacket dimensions to correspond to the dimensions of the jackets then being produced by FTSS.
However, studies of the jacket by Transport Canada and the Alliance in the mid-2000s found that FTSS and Denton dummies performed differently in the types of testing specified in FMVSS No. 208.
These differences between the FTSS and Denton jackets led SAE, in 2006, to establish a task force to develop a harmonized jacket (for ease of reference, referred to in this document as the “SAE jacket”). The main goal of the task force was to develop a jacket design such that both FTSS and Denton could produce a single, interchangeable jacket compatible with both companies' versions of the HIII-5F. The task force also developed a device (referred to as a mandrel) to check jacket fit as the jacket ages (it is known that the jacket shrinks over time).
In 2010, FTSS and Denton merged to form Humanetics. Humanetics continued the jacket harmonization work of its predecessor companies. However, the merger meant that Humanetics was the only dummy manufacturer involved with drafting the SAE information report. Therefore, what began as an effort to specify the design of a “harmonized” jacket that could be produced by any manufacturer became an effort for Humanetics to simply design and produce a jacket that could fit existing Denton and FTSS dummies as well as newly manufactured Humanetics dummies.
During jacket development, Humanetics (under the auspices of SAE) refined the jacket design to account for various issues. NHTSA testing of early iterations of the jacket showed that an HIII-5F dummy fitted with it did not pass the Part 572 Subpart O torso flexion qualification test. (The results of this testing are discussed below in Section IV.) Humanetics addressed this issue by tapering the thickness of the
SAE published an information report for the jacket in 2013 (SAE J2921 JAN2013
Since the introduction of the HIII-5F in 2000, the available jackets brands (principally from FTSS and Denton) did not match each other, and neither exactly matched the Part 572 specifications. Such differences can lead to different compliance test results with different jackets.
In 2006, the Alliance requested that NHTSA, in its compliance testing program, use the same dummy brand (Denton or FTSS) the vehicle manufacturer used in its certification of a particular make/model. NHTSA adopted this requested practice by maintaining qualified dummies (and jackets) from both FTSS and Denton and has tracked which brand was used in the certification of vehicles the agency tests.
Recent events render this approach obsolete and necessitate further action by NHTSA. After the merger of FTSS and Denton, Humanetics indicated that it would maintain production of the FTSS and Denton brand versions of the jackets so that they could be used as spare parts on the existing FTSS and Denton dummies.
Over the past few years, NHTSA has received requests from several vehicle manufacturers for NHTSA to conduct its compliance tests using the SAE jacket. NHTSA did not agree to these requests, and instead required manufacturers to identify an FTSS or Denton jacket for NHTSA to use in its compliance testing. However, because chest jackets shrink or otherwise fall out of specification or wear out with age, NHTSA's stock of FTSS and Denton jackets is running out, and NHTSA has only a limited supply. The Alliance has informed NHTSA that its members are facing the same issue. Thus, the issues of jacket availability and which jacket designs are acceptable for use in compliance tests have become more urgent.
Today's proposal is intended to resolve these issues by commencing amending the Part 572 specifications for the jacket to include the specifications set out in J2921. The proposal also includes a few specifications we developed that are intended to ensure that jackets produced by different manufacturers perform equivalently on all dummy brands. We believe that new jackets currently produced by Humanetics meet both the specifications in J2921 and the additional specifications.
We propose to amend the chest jacket specifications in Subpart O. The proposed changes reflect the J2921 jacket design in which the breast contours are blended more gradually into the torso, compared to the current Subpart O design where the breast contours are more sharply defined.
We propose to adopt the specifications in SAE J2921 (Figures 4-6, which are engineering drawings of the SAE jacket design). However, we also propose adding additional specifications for the jacket's contour that are not contained in SAE J2921. Our proposed additional specifications for the jacket's contour adds breadth, depth, and circumference dimensions at different section levels of the jacket on the main assembly drawing of the dummy (880105-000, Rev. J, Sheet 5). Dimensions are specified for a jacket worn on a dummy,
We tentatively believe these additional specifications are necessary to ensure a sufficiently low level of variation between jackets produced by different manufacturers. We note that the jacket drawing contained within SAE J2921 JAN2013 has less specificity than the current Subpart O drawing, 880105-355-E, Rev. D. In the final J2921 report, there are no dimensions, reference or otherwise, defining the breast size or the arm hole size and location. Also, the taper shown in J2921 (added after the 2011 draft to mitigate binding in the torso flexion test) is pictorial only, with no dimensions. The SAE report also does not indicate whether the specifications are for the jacket on its own or as fitted on a dummy. The agency is concerned that this overall lack of specificity could result in the production of jackets of vastly different shapes, but still meeting the drawing specifications of J2921. As was the case with the old FTSS and Denton jackets and the current Part 572 specifications, this lack of specificity could lead to differences in performance between dummies, which this proposal intends to resolve.
We also tentatively conclude that the proposed jacket specifications would encompass existing jackets that have been built to the SAE J2921 specifications; the proposed specifications were developed in light of such existing jackets. However, we believe that the older FTSS or Denton jackets would not conform to the proposed specifications (for example, the circumference at the different section levels).
NHTSA proposes to amend the Subpart O regulatory text to incorporate by reference new versions of the drawing package, parts list and PADI. These changes are described in more detail in a separate document being placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
To summarize the changes to the new drawing package, the drawings in which the chest jacket is currently specified (880105-355-E, 880105-356, 880105-423, and 880105-424) would be replaced with:
The Chest Flesh Assembly (880105-355-H, Sheets 1 and 2) and the Sternum
NHTSA tentatively concludes that the proposed jacket specification will assure uniformity in the form, fit, and function of the HIII-5F. Based on testing the agency conducted with the SAE chest jacket (see section IV below,
We seek comment on the proposed specifications, including the proposed additional specifications. We seek information and data on whether existing jackets built to SAE J2921 on existing dummies will meet the proposed specifications. NHTSA also seeks comment on what (if any) additional information, such as tolerance specifications, is needed to fully specify the jacket in order to ensure that jackets produced by different manufacturers perform equivalently. We also seek comment on the proposed approach of specifying dimensions for the jacket as fitted on a dummy, including whether additional Subpart O qualification tests are necessary.
We will continue to collect measurement data on newly purchased jackets to check whether the dimensions and tolerances specified herein (including those derived from J2921 drawings and the new section dimensions added by NHTSA) are being met by SAE jackets already in the field. We will also examine all measurement data provided to us. For the final rule, we may adjust the dimensions and tolerances to assure that jackets in the field achieve an acceptable degree of conformity while still assuring a high level of uniformity.
SAE J2921 describes a mandrel to assess the fit of the jacket (because jackets tend to shrink over time, the mandrel was developed to assess jacket fit as it ages). There are reference marks on the back, bottom, and top of the mandrel that serve as indicators that the jacket has shrunk to the point where a replacement is recommended.
Use of the mandrel, if implemented in Subpart O, would constitute a new qualification requirement with a new test procedure. However, J2921 does not provide a test protocol or an objective fit criterion. Also, while J2921 depicts a drawing of the mandrel, it does not provide details or dimensions on the shape of the mandrel.
In its supplemental submission to NHTSA, the Alliance clarified that it was not requesting that the agency specify use of the mandrel; instead, the mandrel is an optional inspection device for test labs and is not intended for inclusion in Subpart O. NHTSA has considered the need for the mandrel and has tentatively decided not to incorporate the mandrel or the fit check procedure outlined in J2921. We seek comment on this.
When a new jacket is introduced, a dummy on which it is installed may need some amount of refurbishment or tuning in order to pass the Subpart O qualification tests.
The degree to which the dummy needs refurbishment may vary. Refurbishment refers to replacing damaged parts with new parts. Some individual dummies require more new parts than others to pass the qualification tests with the SAE jacket. In its testing, NHTSA replaced parts such as the upper leg flesh, the thorax bib, and the molded pelvis. NHTSA found that FTSS dummies required more frequent refurbishment than Denton dummies. In addition, Information Report SAE J2921 states that when a new jacket is fitted to an older dummy, the thickness of rib damping material may need to be re-tuned for the dummy to conform to the Part 572 thorax assembly qualification requirements. In its supplemental submission, the Alliance describes a procedure for tuning the ribs by shaving off damping material. The amount of tuning varies depending on the dummy brand and the specific jacket.
In its own testing, rather than shaving damping material, NHTSA simply replaced the ribs (along with other parts) when the agency retrofitted the J2921 jacket to one of its older dummies. Nonetheless, under certain conditions, shaving the damping material remains an option if end-users so desire. Shaving off damping material acts to lower the force generated in the torso impact qualification test. Because there is no easy way for end-users to add damping material, ribs must be replaced if the force is too low. A replacement rib must have an ample thickness of damping material in order to be shaved.
The need to refurbish or tune existing dummies to obtain passing qualification results is not out of the ordinary. To put this in perspective, whenever a dummy of any type is assembled (not just a HIII-5F) it must usually be adjusted to some degree in order to conform to all Part 572 qualification requirements. After repeated use in full scale vehicle tests, a part may need to be replaced if it has become worn or damaged. When a new part is introduced (such as the jacket of the HIII-5F), replacement of other parts is sometimes needed so that the dummy can pass all qualification requirements.
The spine box of the HIII-5F is the dummy's steel backbone. It is located in the dummy's thorax, which consists of six bands that simulate human ribs. The bands are made of spring steel, and a thick layer of graphite is bonded to each band to provide damping when the bands are deflected, thus giving them humanlike properties. On the posterior aspect of the thorax, the bands are affixed to the spine box. The spine box is currently specified in the parts and drawings document in drawings 880105-1000, and SA572-S28 with call-outs in 880105-300 and the PADI (pg. 21).
In the mid-2000s, the SAE Task Force began an effort—in parallel with its efforts on the chest jacket—to find and eliminate a source of signal noise that sometimes emanated from the HIII-5F spine box. Alliance members determined that the noise was caused by loosening of six socket head cap screws attaching the spine box to the lower spine. Due to a design shortcoming, repeated crash testing loosened the
As a long-term solution, SAE developed an alteration to improve the spine box. Specifically, it recommended adding plates to the side of the spine box, with bolts countersunk into the plate to remove any play from the assembly. The alteration prevents the screws from loosening and eliminates the signal noise. NHTSA and others tested the new spine box fix as it was being developed. (This research is discussed below.) In 2011 SAE published an information report for the spine box modification (SAE J2915 AUG2011,
We propose to change the spine box specifications to permanently fix the signal noise problem. The new versions of the drawing package, parts list and PADI proposed for incorporation by reference include the SAE J2915 specifications for the improved spine box. The proposed revisions would add plates to the side of the spine box, with bolts countersunk into the plate to remove any play from the assembly. We propose to replace the current spine box drawings with the following:
All three drawings are derived from the reprints of drawings contained within SAE J2915 (Jan 2011). We discuss the changes in detail in the document docketed for this NPRM,
The modification would increase the quality of data and reduce maintenance and testing time. The modification does not affect or change the dummy's performance in any way (other than eliminate the potential for noise).
NHTSA and others tested the SAE jacket and spine box to assess ATD performance with the new components. NHTSA's evaluation of the jacket and spine box was presented at the 2011 ESV Conference and in a 2011 paper. The agency conducted several types of tests using HIII-5F dummies retrofitted with jackets built to the then-most current version of the SAE specifications being developed (SAE J2921 was still in draft status); one jacket was made by FTSS, and one was made by Denton). Industry also evaluated the jacket and spine box. The results of this research are briefly summarized below.
In 2011 NHTSA published a study that evaluated preliminary versions of the SAE jacket produced by FTSS and Denton.
The study found that the two brands of preliminary SAE jackets were identical in appearance (with some slight variations) and compared well to a draft version of the SAE drawings.
Qualification tests prescribed in Subpart O, including those most likely to be influenced by the jacket (the thorax impact test and the quasi-static torso flexion test) were also carried out. All of those Subpart O qualification requirements were met for all dummy configurations with one exception: When either an FTSS dummy or a Denton dummy was fitted with the SAE jacket, the dummy did not meet the pull force requirement for the torso flexion test. During the flexion test, the jacket tended to bind at the waist when the dummies were pitched forward into the 45-degree test position. The added resistance due to the binding caused the pull force to exceed the specified limit of 390 N. The study concluded that further work on the jacket was needed to address the torso flexion test results. The SAE jacket was subsequently redesigned to address this.
NHTSA also conducted sled tests similar in severity to a frontal rigid barrier crash test (35 mph, peak acceleration of 28 Gs) and static, low-risk out-of-position air bag deployments. NHTSA found that dummies fitted with the jackets built to the SAE design under development performed essentially the same as dummies fitted with pre-existing FTSS and Denton jackets with respect to dummy injury metrics and other responses, including those most likely to be affected by the chest jacket (chest deflection and acceleration).
When SAE finalized the jacket design and issued SAE J2921 in 2013, NHTSA purchased new jackets (from Humanetics and JASTI-USA) to ensure they would fit properly on the agency's existing FTSS and Denton HIII-5F dummies, and that “passing” results could be obtained in the torso flexion and thorax impact qualification tests. In all instances, the agency was able to demonstrate passing results for both these qualification tests (some dummy refurbishment was needed to pass the test, but as noted above, refurbishment of an ATD when a new part is fitted is a common operating procedure). See Table 2.
In summary, these tests demonstrated that old dummies (FTSS and Denton versions) that were fitted with the SAE jacket would pass the Subpart O qualification requirements. Once an older dummy was retrofitted with a new J2921 jacket, all parts on the dummy conformed dimensionally to the proposed Subpart O engineering drawings.
NHTSA did not perform re-tests of the sled and out-of-position test series performed for the 2011 study with the final version of the SAE jacket. The final revision only reduced the length of the sternal pad and tapered the lower portion of the jacket. These changes affect the dummy response in extreme thorax flexion as seen in the torso flexion qualification test. Because this condition was not manifested in either the sled or out-of-position test series, NHTSA believes the effects of the taper and shorter sternal pad would have been negligible. Nonetheless, NHTSA believes that the revisions to the jacket design were necessary; when extreme flexion does occur, the torso response must be preserved.
The Alliance's supplement to its rulemaking petition and SAE J2921 also indicate that the SAE jacket performs equivalently to the Denton and FTSS jackets.
The SAE report shows that the SAE jacket has not affected thorax biofidelity. It shows that the force vs. deflection plots for the 6.7 m/s thorax impact tests with the SAE jackets were within the biofidelity corridors that served as design targets for the original dummy design. The plots demonstrate that the SAE jacket has not affected dummy response.
The Alliance submitted information in its supplemental letter demonstrating that the SAE jacket can pass the Subpart O thorax impact tests. However, we note that both the Alliance and SAE J2921 indicate that the thickness of rib damping material may need to be adjusted for the dummy to conform to the Part 572 qualification requirement for the thorax assembly when a new SAE jacket is placed on an old dummy. The Alliance, in its supplemental submission, clarified how and why this adjustment is made. Due to high batch-to-batch variability of the rib damping material, the dynamic performance of the rib is specified and not the thickness. New ribs are shipped with the expectation that some tuning (shaving down some rib damping material) is required to bring the dummy into acceptable performance corridors depending upon the chest jacket used. The interchangeability varies with the brand and dummy condition, so adjustments may be necessary when switching jackets.
The testing also indicated that the final version of the SAE jacket could pass the Subpart O torso flexion test. Testing by both SAE and Alliance members found, as did NHTSA, that the first iteration of the SAE jacket (made in 2011) registered high pull forces in the torso flexion test. Testing of the final version of the jacket showed, however, that it was able to pass the torso flexion test. Both SAE J2921 and the Alliance's supplemental submission indicate that when a new SAE jacket is fitted to an older dummy, some refurbishment of the dummy may be needed in order for it and the new jacket to perform properly.
NHTSA's 2011 study showed that the spine modification had completely eliminated the noise emanating from the chest without affecting the response of the dummy in any other way. The study found that the spine boxes manufactured by different manufacturers were identical, suggesting that the spine box alterations are sufficiently specified. The study also concluded that the spine box was durable.
Testing undertaken for the SAE task force and reported in SAE J2915 also showed that the new spine box had equivalent performance to the existing spine box and did not loosen over repeated testing.
NHTSA proposes to make the changes effective 45 days after publication of a final rule. This means that Subpart O—the specifications for the chest jacket and spine box—will be changed on that date. FMVSS No. 208 specifies that NHTSA is to use the Subpart O dummy in its compliance tests. Thus, starting on the effective date of the final rule, under FMVSS No. 208 the HIII 5th percentile adult female dummy would be used
NHTSA believes the 45-day lead time would be sufficient because we do not believe that testing under FMVSS No. 208 would be significantly affected by the final rule. Vehicle manufacturers already use the SAE jacket on the ATD. Moreover, because none of the dummy jackets that are currently in use correspond to the existing Subpart O specifications, there should be no issue with taking an existing dummy out of conformity with the implementation of this rule. We also believe that jackets built to SAE J2921 that are currently used in the field would conform to the proposed specifications. The improved spine box is not expected to affect dummy performance because the revision only acts to remove the unwanted artifact of loose bolts rattling.
Manufacturers wishing to test with the proposed jacket and spine box should have no difficulty obtaining the necessary parts. NHTSA asked the Alliance to assess the cost and availability of obtaining the parts associated with the proposed changes. In its supplemental letter, the Alliance indicated that all parts associated with the proposed jacket and spine box changes are available, and there should not be any difficulties meeting anticipated demand.
We also tentatively conclude that a shortened lead time is desirable because the proposed changes are beneficial for testing laboratories. We believe that the proposed jacket and spine box changes would likely lead to diminished laboratory technician workload. A common jacket design would eliminate the need to deal with multiple jacket versions. The new spine box would also lighten laboratory workload by eliminating the need to re-torque the bolts between tests. With respect to levels of effort and technician training needed to modify and maintain the new jacket and spine box, the Alliance indicated in its supplemental letter that both modifications are well within the technical competency of existing laboratory technicians. It also stated that the introduction of the new parts will not create any significant increases in the workload necessary to maintain the dummies.
The agency proposes the following housekeeping and other amendments to Subpart O.
1. NHTSA proposes to amend the title of Subpart O to add the word “adult” between “5th percentile” and “female” for clarity.
2. The agency proposes to remove the words “Alpha Version” from the title of Subpart O. During adoption of some of the subparts of Part 572 NHTSA had decided that referring to the alpha, beta, etc., “versions” of the test dummies would better distinguish a current version of an ATD from a previous version. The agency later decided this naming convention was not helpful and has not followed it. Accordingly, we would like to remove “Alpha Version” from the title of Subpart O since the naming convention is no longer used.
3. This NPRM proposes to revise Subpart O's references to SAE J211 parts 1 and 2 and to SAE J1733 to refer to the most up-to-date versions of the standards. SAE J211 is revised with improved diagrams for defining the dummy coordinate system, and corrections to minor mistakes in print. New information and recommendations for data system grounding, sensor cable shielding, and minimizing the effects of transducer resonance are included. Clarifications on data processing are also included. J1733 is revised with improved diagrams for defining the dummy coordinate system (for the HIII-5F, the system itself is unchanged).
We have considered the potential impact of this proposed rule under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and DOT Order 2100.6, and have determined that it is nonsignificant. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866. We have considered the qualitative costs and benefits of this NPRM under the principles of E.O. 12866.
As stated in 49 CFR 572.3,
This NPRM proposes changes to the specifications of the HIII-5F chest jacket and spine box. For entities testing with the dummy, the proposed revisions are intended to resolve issues with the fit and availability of the jacket and a noise artifact from the spine box. Neither change would impose new requirements on vehicle manufacturers.
With respect to benefits, the dummy would not change in any way other than to improve its usability and objectivity. This rulemaking benefits the public by specifying a more objective test tool, which lessens the burden of dummy end-users in performing tests and interpreting test results. It also benefits vehicle manufacturers by providing certainty about which test jacket and spine box NHTSA will use in compliance tests with the HIII 5th percentile adult female ATD, and assurance about the continued availability of the jacket. This rulemaking benefits NHTSA as the agency would no longer have to maintain test jackets of different designs and take steps to match the compliance test jacket with that specified by the vehicle manufacturers. Specifying the new test jacket and spine box ensures the long-term availability of a test jacket for compliance tests.
The costs associated with this rulemaking are limited to those associated with acquiring new dummy parts. We tentatively conclude that the proposed changes would not necessitate the purchasing of any parts that would not have been purchased in the normal course of business in the absence of the proposed changes.
We do not believe the proposed chest jacket changes would impose any additional costs compared to what would have been expended if we did not adopt the proposed changes. Because a chest jacket eventually wears out, it must be replaced. Dummy refurbishments and part replacements are a routine part of ATD testing. The agency understands that industry has essentially run out of its supply of the older FTSS and Denton jackets. We further understand that industry has been replacing worn-out FTSS and Denton jackets with new jackets built to the SAE J2921 specifications. While the FTSS and Denton jackets are not consistent with the proposed specifications, we believe that chest jackets built to the SAE J2921 specifications would meet the proposed specifications. Because industry and testing labs need to replace the chest jacket in the regular course of business—regardless of whether the proposed changes are adopted—and the only available replacement chest jackets conform to the proposed specifications, we believe the proposed chest jacket
The revised spine box, which is not typically replaced during routine maintenance, costs about $600. End users do not have to purchase a revised spine box. They can compensate for the design shortcoming of the current spine box by disassembling the dummy and re-torqueing the relevant fasteners by hand before each test.
Executive Order 13771, titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or Agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” are subject to these requirements. As discussed above, this rule is not a significant rule under Executive Order 12866 and, accordingly, is not subject to the offset requirements of 13771.
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides, in part:
The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
The proposed revisions are intended to resolve issues with the fit and availability of the jacket and a noise artifact from the spine box. Neither change would impose new requirements on vehicle manufacturers. NHTSA does not believe the proposal would lead to any reduction in harmonization.
Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed amendment in accordance with the principles and criteria set forth in E.O. 13132. The agency has determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation and the preparation of a federalism assessment.
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rulemaking action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the revisions to the test dummy would not impose any requirements on anyone. NHTSA would use the revised ATD in agency testing but would not require anyone to manufacture the dummy or to test motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment with it. Further, small vehicle manufacturers that choose to test with the 5th percentile adult female dummy would not be significantly impacted by this rulemaking. The proposal would simply replace the chest jacket and spine box now used with the test dummy with more up-to-date equipment. Since chest jackets must periodically be replaced on the test dummy because they wear out, this amendment would not significantly affect end users of the ATD (they will continue to do what they already do). Similarly, the change to the new spine box would not significantly affect small vehicle manufacturers. It entails a simple one-time replacement where the old part would be switched out with the new.
Under regulations issued by the Office of the Federal Register (1 CFR 51.5(a)), an agency, as part of a proposed rule that includes material incorporated by reference, must summarize material that
This proposed rule would incorporate by reference updated versions of a parts list, drawings, and a manual into 49 CFR part 572, subpart O. This material is published by NHTSA (with permission from SAE International). The contents of the documents are summarized in Sections II.e and III.b, above, and a draft of the documents that would be incorporated by reference has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking for interested parties to review.
This proposed rule would also incorporate updated versions of SAE Recommended Practice J211/1 parts 1 and 2 and SAE J1733. Older versions of these documents are already incorporated by reference into Subpart O. The changes in the updated versions are summarized in Section VI, above. The version currently incorporated by reference is available in SAE International's online reading room.
Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (Public Law 104-113), “all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.” Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
SAE has published information reports on the HIII 5th percentile adult female's chest jacket and spine box which today's proposal incorporates in full. The foregoing sections of this document discuss in detail SAE's work in these areas: SAE J2921 (Chest Jacket) and SAE J2915 (Spine Box). To the extent the NPRM has a few specifications beyond SAE J2921, we explain our belief that they are necessary to ensure a sufficient level of uniformity between jackets produced by different manufacturers going forward, and to prevent discrepancies in jacket designs from reoccurring in the future.
In addition, the following voluntary consensus standards have been used in developing this NPRM:
• SAE Recommended Practice J211/1_201403 (March 2014), “Electronic Instrumentation;”
• SAE Recommended Practice J211/2_201406 (June 2014), “Photographic Instrumentation”; and
• SAE J1733_201811 (November 2018), “Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing.”
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501,
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) (UMRA) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditures by States, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation with base year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross domestic product price deflator for 2013 results in $142 million (109.929/75.324 = 1.42). The assessment may be included in conjunction with other assessments, as it is here.
This proposed rule would not impose any unfunded mandates under the UMRA. This proposed rule does not meet the definition of a Federal mandate because it does not impose requirements on anyone. It amends 49 CFR part 572 by adding specifications for a new test jacket and spine box for the 5th percentile adult female dummy that NHTSA uses in agency compliance tests. This NPRM would affect only those businesses that choose to manufacture or test with the dummy. This proposed rule is not likely to result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments of more than $100 million annually.
Executive Order 12866 and E.O. 13563 require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
• Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
• Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this proposal.
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
• To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket Number found in the heading of this document in your comments.
• Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long.
• If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.
• Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied on and used by NHTSA, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, NHTSA encourages you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. DOT's guidelines may be accessed at
When submitting comments, please remember to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions you make and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• To ensure that your comments are considered by the agency, make sure to submit them by the comment period deadline identified in the
For additional guidance on submitting effective comments, visit:
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under
We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may read the comments received by the docket at the address given above under
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material. You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file comments in the docket. See
Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by reference.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 572 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference (IBR) into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, NHTSA must publish a document in the
(b) NHTSA Technical Information Services, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone 202-366-5965.
(1) A parts/drawing list entitled: “Hybrid III 5th Percentile Adult Female Crash Test Dummy Parts List, ([
(2) A drawings and specification package entitled “Parts List and Drawings, Part 572 Subpart O Hybrid III Fifth Percentile Adult Female Crash Test Dummy (HIII-5F) Revision K ([
(i) Drawing No. 880105-100X, Head Assembly, IBR approved for §§ 572.131, 572.132, 572.133, 572.134, 572.135, and 572.137;
(ii) Drawing No. 880105-250, Neck Assembly, IBR approved for §§ 572.131, 572.133, 572.134, 572.135, and 572.137;
(iii) Drawing No. 880105-300, Upper Torso Assembly, IBR approved for §§ 572.131, 572.134, 572.135, and 572.137;
(iv) Drawing No. 880105-450, Lower Torso Assembly, IBR approved for
(v) Drawing No. 880105-560-1, Complete Leg Assembly—left, IBR approved for §§ 572.131, 572.135, 572.136, and 572.137;
(vi) Drawing No. 880105-560-2, Complete Leg Assembly—right, IBR approved for §§ 572.131, 572.135, 572.136, and 572.137;
(vii) Drawing No. 880105-728-1, Complete Arm Assembly—left, IBR approved for §§ 572.131, 572.134, and 572.135 as part of the complete dummy assembly;
(viii) Drawing No. 880105-728-2, Complete Arm Assembly—right, IBR approved for §§ 572.131, 572.134, and 572.135 as part of the complete dummy assembly.
(3) A procedures manual entitled “Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) Subpart O Hybrid III Fifth Percentile Adult Female Crash Test Dummy (HIII-5F) Revision K ([
(c) SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096, call 1-877-606-7323.
(1) SAE Recommended Practice J211/1_201403, “Instrumentation for Impact Test—Part 1, Electronic Instrumentation,” (March 2014), IBR approved for § 572.137;
(2) SAE Recommended Practice J211/2_201406, “Instrumentation for Impact Tests—Part 2, Photographic Instrumentation,” (June 2014), IBR approved for § 572.137; and
(3) SAE J1733_201811, “Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing,” (November 2018), IBR approved for § 572.137.
(a) * * *
(2) Parts List and Drawings, Part 572 Subpart O Hybrid III Fifth Percentile Adult Female Crash Test Dummy (HIII 5F), Revision K ([
(m) The outputs of acceleration and force-sensing devices installed in the dummy and in the test apparatus specified by this part shall be recorded in individual data channels that conform to SAE Recommended Practice J211/1_201403, “Instrumentation for Impact Test—Part 1, Electronic Instrumentation,” and SAE Recommended Practice J211/2_201406, “Instrumentation for Impact Tests—Part 2, Photographic Instrumentation” (incorporated by reference, see § 572.130), except as noted, with channel classes as follows:
(n) Coordinate signs for instrumentation polarity shall conform to SAE J1733_201811, “Sign Convention for Vehicle Crash Testing,” (incorporated by reference, see § 572.130).
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.4.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding: Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and 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.
Comments regarding this information collection received by January 27, 2020 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding: Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; 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.
Comments regarding this information collection received by January 27, 2020 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding: Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and 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.
Comments regarding this information collection received by January 27, 2020 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, (Pub. L. 114-113) authorized USDA to conduct A demonstration program for the preservation and revitalization of the Sections 514, 515, and 516 multi-family rental housing properties to restructure existing USDA/Multi-Family Housing (MFH) loans to ensure the project has sufficient resources to provide safe and affordable housing for low-income residents and farm laborers.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a revision of a currently approved information collection.
Written comments must be received on or before February 24, 2020.
Comments may be sent to Andrea Farmer, Community Meals Branch, Policy and Program Development Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Andrea Farmer at 703-305-6294 or via email to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Andrea Farmer, Community Meals Branch, Policy and Program Development Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
This is a revision of a currently approved information collection (ICR). Section 17 of the National School Lunch Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1766), authorizes the Child and Adult Care Program (CACFP). Under this Program, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to provide cash reimbursement and commodity assistance, on a per meal basis, for food service to children in nonresidential child care centers and family or group day care homes, and to eligible adults in nonresidential adult day care centers. This renewal revises reporting and recordkeeping burden and adds public disclosure burden not captured in the previous ICR.
Reporting and recordkeeping burden had to be adjusted because of decreases in the number of sponsoring organizations and facilities, and an increase in the number of enrolled participants who are required to submit information. In order to ensure that the ICR adequately represents the reporting burden associated with operating CACFP, FNS included the requirement that State agencies must comply with policy, instructions, guidance, and handbooks issued by USDA. Similarly, FNS also adjusted the burden hours associated with reviewing materials to comply with all regulations issued by USDA for institutions. In the past, reviewing policy, instructions, guidance, and handbooks were burden implied with implementing CACFP, however, it was not included in the burden table. Adding the hours it would take to review materials is important because it allows USDA to capture the burden of operating CACFP. FNS also separated out burden associated with the serious deficiency process for new, renewing, and participating institutions. Finally, in this revision, FNS included the reporting burden for State agencies and institutions associated with submitting documents of corrective action and other records related to operating the program such as administrative budget, notice of proposed suspension, and notice of corrective actions.
In this renewal, FNS added public disclosure burden associated with requirements regarding public notification about the CACFP, which have been a part of the CACFP regulations but were not included in the burden estimates for the currently approved information collection. FNS also included public disclosure burden for State agencies per policy guidance, which allows State agencies to issue media releases on behalf of the institutions. Public disclosure burden hours for State agencies were not captured in the past. However, through feedback from State agencies, FNS adjusted the burden hours because FNS learned that many State agencies issue a public notice on behalf of their institutions.
The current OMB inventory for this collection includes reporting and recordkeeping burden that consists of 2,481,136 hours. As explained above, due to a combination of decreased respondents and additional public disclosure and reporting requirements, program burden increased from 2,481,136 hours to 3,703,593 hours. The recordkeeping burden decreased from 610,724 hours to 568,460 hours. In contrast, the reporting burden increased
Refer to Table 1 below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Tennessee Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Friday, January 10, 2020, at 12:30 p.m. Central Time, to continue discussion of its report on legal financial obligations.
David Mussatt (Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-367-2403, conference ID number: 3970860. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, John C. Kluczynski Federal Building, 230 S. Dearborn St., Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meetings at
On October 18, 2019, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the City of Waterville, grantee of FTZ 186, requesting an expansion of Subzone 186A subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 186 on behalf of Flemish Master Weavers, in Sanford, Maine.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Waters Technologies Corporation (Waters) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Milford, Massachusetts. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on December 13, 2019.
The applicant indicates that it will be submitting a separate application for FTZ designation at the company's facility under FTZ 27. The facility is used for the production of chromatography tubing assemblies. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status component and the specific finished product described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Waters from customs duty payments on the foreign-status component used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status component noted below, Waters would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to chromatography tubing assemblies (duty-free). Waters would be able to avoid duty on the foreign-status component which becomes scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The component/material sourced from abroad is stainless steel seamless tubing (duty-free). The request indicates that stainless steel seamless tubing is subject to special duties under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232) and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable Section 232 and Section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Diane Finver at
Oceaneering International, Inc. (Oceaneering Intl.) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Panama City, Florida. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on December 11, 2019.
The Oceaneering Intl. facility is located within FTZ 65. The facility will be used for the production and repair of sub-sea distribution parts and systems. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Oceaneering Intl. from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below, Oceaneering Intl. would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: Hydraulic hoses; extruded stainless steel tubes; electrical cable caps; electrical cables; subsea umbilicals;
The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Hydraulic fluids; lubricating oils (synthetic; petroleum; resin); ethylene glycol mixes; paints; caulking sealants; propylene resins; nylon pellets; elastomeric resin stiffeners; elastomeric resin covers; polyurethane resin cable connectors; plastic components (cable and hose tubing; sleeves; fittings; cylindrical strips; umbilical protection shrouds; seals; sleeves to protect bending damage); tape components (electrical plastic; duct; fiberglass; electrical steel; galvanized steel); bungee cords; hydraulic hoses; rubber o-rings; rubber straps; strong synthetic plastic polymers; stainless steel components (seamless super-duplex tubing; flanges; fasteners; hex bolts); steel components (pipe fittings; hex bolts; bolts assemblies; studs; locknuts; lugnuts; hex nuts; washers; hangers); soft copper cables; nickel alloy strips; titanium banding; lifting components (roller assemblies; roller packers; assemblies; apparatuses); electronic systems; valve remote control units; electrical apparatus harnesses; underwater electrical connectors; electric components (cables; test plugs; test plug pins; test receptacles); electrical copper wires; cable end test plugs; cable end test receptacles; umbilical termination assemblies; fiber optic cables; syntactic foam buoyancy modules; and, pressure transmitters (duty rate ranges from duty free to 7.0% or $0.84/BBL). The request indicates that certain materials/components may be subject to special duties under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232) or Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable Section 232 and Section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Juanita Chen at
On October 30, 2019, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of FTZ 38, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 38, on behalf of Commerce Warehouse Group, LLC, in Rock Hill, South Carolina.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meetings.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed topics of discussion for upcoming public meetings of the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness (Committee).
The meetings will be held on January 15, 2020, from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., and January 16, 2020, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
The meetings will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Research Library (Room 1894), Washington, DC 20230.
Richard Boll, Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services (OSCPBS), International Trade Administration. Phone: (202) 482-1135 or email:
The meetings will be open to the public and press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. The public meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Richard Boll, at (202) 482-1135 or
Interested parties may submit written comments to the Committee at any time
For consideration during the meetings, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meetings, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on January 6, 2020. Comments received after January 6, 2020, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be considered at the meetings. The minutes of the meetings will be posted on the Committee website within 60 days of the meeting.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of certain cold-rolled steel flat products (CRS), produced in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) using carbon hot-rolled steel (HRS) manufactured in the Republic of Korea (Korea), are circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on CRS from Korea.
Applicable December 26, 2019.
Tyler Weinhold or Fred Baker, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1121 or (202) 482-2924, respectively.
On July 10, 2019, Commerce published the
The products covered by these orders are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. For a complete description of the scope of the orders,
These anti-circumvention inquiries cover CRS produced in Vietnam using HRS substrate manufactured in Korea and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States (merchandise under consideration). These final rulings apply to all shipments of merchandise under consideration entered on or after the date of the initiation of these inquiries. Importers and exporters of CRS produced in Vietnam using HRS manufactured in Vietnam or third countries, and who qualify to participate in the certification process, must certify that the HRS processed into CRS in Vietnam did not originate in Korea, as provided for in the certifications attached to this
Commerce is conducting these anti-circumvention inquiries in accordance with section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Because Vietnam is a non-market economy country within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, Commerce calculated the value of certain processing and merchandise using factors of production and market economy values, as discussed in section 773(c) of the Act.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in these inquiries are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix I.
We determine that exports to the United States of CRS produced in Vietnam from HRS substrate manufactured in Korea are circumventing the
As stated above, Commerce has made an affirmative determination of circumvention of the
The suspension of liquidation and cash deposit instructions will remain in effect until further notice. In order to prevent evasion, and because the AD and CVD rates established in the
CRS produced in Vietnam from HRS substrate that is not of Korean-origin is not subject to these inquiries. Therefore, cash deposits are not required for such merchandise. However, CRS produced in Vietnam from HRS from China is subject to the AD/CVD orders on CRS from China. If an importer imports CRS from Vietnam and claims that the CRS was produced from non-Korean HRS substrate, in order not to be subject to cash deposit requirements, the importer and exporter are required to meet the certification and documentation requirements described in Appendix II. Exporters of CRS produced in Vietnam from non-Korean origin HRS substrate must prepare and maintain an Exporter Certification and documentation supporting the Exporter Certification (
For these final determinations, we determine that the following companies are not eligible for the certification process: 190 Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., Central Vietnam Metal Corp., Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co., POSCO E&C, POSCO SS Vina, POSCO VST, VSC—POSCO Steel Corporation, Prima Commodities Co., Southern Steel Sheet Co., Ltd., Tan Thanh Quyen Steel Co., Thai Nguyen Iron and Steel Corp., Thong Nhat Flat Steel, Van Loi Co. Ltd., Vietnam Germany Steel JSC, Vietnam Steel Corp., Vietnam Steel Pipe, Vina Kyoei Steel Ltd., Vinda Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., and VNSTEEL—Phu My Flat Steel Co. Accordingly, importers of CRS from Vietnam that is produced and/or exported by these ineligible companies are similarly ineligible for the certification process with regard to those imports. Additionally, exporters are not eligible to certify shipments of merchandise produced by the above-listed companies. Accordingly, Hoa Phat Group Joint Stock Company and Hoa Phat Steel Sheet are not eligible to certify shipments of CRS produced by Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co.
This notice will serve as the only reminder to all parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These determinations are issued and published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f).
If an importer imports certain cold-rolled steel flat products (CRS) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and claims that the CRS was not produced from hot-rolled steel substrate (substrate) manufactured in Korea, the importer is required to complete and maintain the importer certification attached hereto as Appendix III and all supporting documentation. Where the importer uses a broker to facilitate the entry process, it should obtain the entry number from the broker. Agents of the importer, such as brokers, however, are not permitted to make this certification on behalf of the importer.
The exporter is required to complete and maintain the exporter certification, attached as Appendix IV, and is further required to provide the importer a copy of that certification and all supporting documentation.
As discussed in the Issues and Decisions Memorandum, for these final determinations, we are extending the period for completing certifications for shipments and/or entries during the August 2, 2018 through July 18, 2019 period established in the
For companies that were not eligible to certify pursuant to the
Accordingly, where appropriate, the relevant bullet in the certification should be edited to reflect that the certification was completed within the time frame specified above. For example, the bullet in the importer certification that reads: “This certification was completed at or prior to the time of Entry,” could be edited as follows: “The imports referenced herein entered before July 19, 2019. This certification was completed on mm/dd/yyyy, within 30 days of the
For shipments and/or entries on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
For shipments and/or entries made on or after 10 days after the date of publication of these final determinations, parties should use the exporter and importer certifications contained below that incorporate additional information that was not in the preliminary determinations certifications. Specifically, the exporter certification now requires identification of the producer of the merchandise being exported to the United States, and also notes that CVD deposits may be required in addition to AD deposits as a result of the failure to maintain the required certification or the inability to substantiate the claims made in the certification. Similarly, the importer certification also notes that CVD deposits may be required in addition to AD deposits as a result of the failure to maintain the required certification or the inability to substantiate the claims made in the certification. The importer and Vietnamese exporter are also required to maintain sufficient documentation supporting their certifications. The importer will not be required to submit the certifications or supporting documentation to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as part of the entry process at this time. However, the importer and the exporter will be required to present the certifications and supporting documentation, to Commerce and/or CBP, as applicable, upon request by the respective agency. Additionally, the claims made in the certifications and any supporting documentation are subject to verification by Commerce and/or CBP. The importer and exporter are required to maintain the certifications and supporting documentation for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries.
In the situation where no certification is maintained for an entry, and AD/CVD orders from two countries (China or Korea) potentially apply to that entry, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the
I hereby certify that:
• My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME HERE} and I am an official of {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY};
• I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the importation into the Customs territory of the United States of the cold-rolled steel flat products produced in Vietnam that entered under entry number(s) {INSERT ENTRY NUMBER(S)} and are covered by this certification. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, the importer should have “direct personal knowledge” of the importation of the product (
• I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production of the imported products covered by this certification. “Personal knowledge” includes facts obtained from another party, (
• These cold-rolled steel flat products produced in Vietnam do not contain hot-rolled steel substrate produced in Korea:
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (Commerce);
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of the exporter's certification for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain and provide a copy of the exporter's certification and supporting records, upon request, to CBP and/or Commerce;
• I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
• I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:
○ Suspension of liquidation of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met and
○ the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping/countervailing duty (AD and/or CVD) cash deposits equal to the rates as determined by Commerce;
• I understand that agents of the importer, such as brokers, are not permitted to make this certification;
• This certification was completed at or prior to the time of Entry; and
• I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make materially false statements to the U.S. government.
I hereby certify that:
• My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME HERE} and I am an official of {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY};
• I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production and exportation of the cold-rolled steel flat products that were sold to the United States under invoice number(s) INSERT INVOICE NUMBER(S). “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own books and records. For example, an exporter should have “direct personal knowledge” of the producer's identity and location.
• The {MERCHANDISE} covered by this certification was produced by {NAME OF PRODUCING COMPANY}, located at {ADDRESS OF PRODUCING COMPANY};
• These cold-rolled steel flat products produced in Vietnam do not contain hot-rolled steel substrate produced in Korea:
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} must provide this Exporter Certification to the U.S. importer by the time of shipment;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide a copy of this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (Commerce);
• I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
• I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:
○ Suspension of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met and
○ the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping/countervailing duty (AD and/or CVD) cash deposits equal to the rates as determined by Commerce;
• This certification was completed at or prior to the time of shipment; and
• I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make materially false statements to the U.S. government.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE), completed in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) using carbon hot-rolled steel (HRS) and/or cold-rolled steel (CRS) flat products manufactured in Taiwan, are circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) order on CORE from Taiwan.
Applicable December 26, 2019.
Shanah Lee or Peter Zukowski, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6386 and (202) 482-0189, respectively.
On July 11, 2019, Commerce published the
The products covered by this order are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. For a complete description of the scope of the order,
This anti-circumvention inquiry covers CORE completed in Vietnam from HRS and/or CRS substrate manufactured in Taiwan and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States (merchandise under consideration). This final ruling applies to all shipments of merchandise under consideration entered on or after the date of the initiation of this inquiry. Importers and exporters of CORE produced in Vietnam using: (1) HRS manufactured in Vietnam or third countries, (2) CRS manufactured in Vietnam using HRS produced in Vietnam or third countries, or (3) CRS manufactured in third countries, must certify that the HRS and/or CRS processed into CORE in Vietnam did not originate in Taiwan, as provided for in the certifications attached to the
Commerce is conducting this anti-circumvention inquiry in accordance with section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Because Vietnam is a non-market economy, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act,
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this inquiry are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix I.
Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the value of further processing calculation, value of input purchases from Taiwan, and pattern of trade analysis since the
We determine that exports to the United States of CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS or CRS substrate manufactured in Taiwan are circumventing the
As stated above, Commerce has made an affirmative determination of circumvention of the
The suspension of liquidation and cash deposit instructions will remain in effect until further notice. In order to prevent evasion, and because the AD and countervailing duty (CVD) rates established in
CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS or CRS substrate that is not of Taiwan-origin is not subject to this inquiry. Therefore, cash deposits are not required for such merchandise. However, CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS and/or CRS from China is subject to the AD/CVD orders on CORE from China, and CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS and/or CRS from Korea is subject to the AD order on CORE from Korea. If an importer imports CORE from Vietnam and claims that the CORE was produced from non-Taiwanese HRS or CRS substrate, in order not to be subject to cash deposit requirements, the importer and exporter are required to meet the certification and documentation requirements described in Appendix II. Exporters of CORE produced in Vietnam from non-Taiwan-origin HRS or CRS substrate must prepare and maintain an Exporter Certification and documentation supporting the Exporter Certification (
For this final determination, we determine that the following companies are not eligible for the certification process: 190 Steel Pipe Co. Ltd.; Chinh Dai Steel Limited; Hoa Phat Steel Pipe; Perstima Viet Nam; Prima Commodities Co.; Thong Nhat Flat Steel; Trung Nguyen Steel Co.; Vietnam Germany Steel JSC; Vietnam Steel Corp.; Thai Nguyen Iron and Steel Corp.; Vina Kyoei Steel Ltd.; and Vietnam Steel Pipe. Accordingly, importers of CORE from Vietnam produced and/or exported by these ineligible companies are similarly ineligible for the certification process with regard to those imports. Additionally, exporters are not eligible to certify shipments of merchandise produced by the above-listed companies. Accordingly, Hoa Phat Group Joint Stock Company and Hoa Phat Steel Sheet are not eligible to certify shipments of CORE produced by Hoa Phat Steel Pipe.
This notice will serve as the only reminder to all parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f).
If an importer imports certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and claims that the CORE was not produced from hot-rolled steel and/or cold-rolled steel substrate (substrate) manufactured in Taiwan, the importer is required to complete and maintain the importer certification attached hereto as Appendix III and all supporting documentation. Where the importer uses a broker to facilitate the entry process, it should obtain the entry number from the broker. Agents of the importer, such as brokers, however, are not permitted to make this certification on behalf of the importer.
The exporter is required to complete and maintain the exporter certification, attached as Appendix IV, and is further required to provide the importer a copy of that certification and all supporting documentation.
As discussed in the Issues and Decisions Memorandum, for this final determination, we are extending the period for completing certifications for shipments and/or entries during the August 2, 2018 through July 18, 2019 period established in the
For companies that were not eligible to certify pursuant to the
Accordingly, where appropriate, the relevant bullet in the certification should be edited to reflect that the certification was
For shipments and/or entries on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
For shipments and/or entries made on or after 10 days after the date of publication of this final determination, exporters should use the certification contained below that incorporates additional information that was not in the preliminary determination certification. Specifically, the certification now requires identification of the producer of the merchandise being exported to the United States. The importer and Vietnamese exporter are also required to maintain sufficient documentation supporting their certifications. The importer will not be required to submit the certifications or supporting documentation to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as part of the entry process at this time. However, the importer and the exporter will be required to present the certifications and supporting documentation, to Commerce and/or CBP, as applicable, upon request by the respective agency. Additionally, the claims made in the certifications and any supporting documentation are subject to verification by Commerce and/or CBP. The importer and exporter are required to maintain the certifications and supporting documentation for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries.
In the situation where no certification is maintained for an entry, and AD/CVD orders from three countries (China, Korea, or Taiwan) potentially apply to that entry, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the
I hereby certify that:
• My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME HERE} and I am an official of {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY};
• I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the importation into the Customs territory of the United States of the corrosion-resistant steel products produced in Vietnam that entered under entry number(s) {INSERT ENTRY NUMBER(S)} and are covered by this certification. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, the importer should have “direct personal knowledge” of the importation of the product (
• I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production of the imported products covered by this certification. “Personal knowledge” includes facts obtained from another party, (
• These corrosion-resistant steel products produced in Vietnam do not contain hot-rolled steel and/or cold-rolled steel substrate produced in Taiwan:
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (Commerce);
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of the exporter's certification for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain and provide a copy of the exporter's certification and supporting records, upon request, to CBP and/or Commerce;
• I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
• I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:
○ Suspension of liquidation of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met and
○ the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping duty (AD) cash deposits equal to the rates as determined by Commerce;
• I understand that agents of the importer, such as brokers, are not permitted to make this certification;
• This certification was completed at or prior to the time of Entry; and
• I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make materially false statements to the U.S. government.
I hereby certify that:
• My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME HERE} and I am an official of {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY};
• I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production and exportation of the corrosion-resistant steel products that were sold to the United States under invoice number(s) INSERT INVOICE NUMBER(S). “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own books and records. For example, an exporter should have “direct personal knowledge” of the producer's identity and location.
• The {MERCHANDISE} covered this certification was produced by {NAME OF PRODUCING COMPANY}, located at {ADDRESS OF PRODUCING COMPANY};
• These corrosion-resistant steel products produced in Vietnam do not contain hot-rolled steel and/or cold-rolled steel substrate produced in Taiwan:
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} must provide this Exporter Certification to the U.S. importer by the time of shipment;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide a copy of this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (Commerce);
• I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
• I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:
○ Suspension of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met and
○ the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping duty (AD) cash deposits equal to the rates as determined by Commerce;
• This certification was completed at or prior to the time of shipment;
• I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make materially false statements to the U.S. government.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable December 26, 2019.
Laurel LaCivita at (202) 482-4243 or Katherine Sliney at (202) 482-2437 (Republic of Korea (Korea)); Matthew Renkey at (202) 482-2312 or Javier Barrientos at (202) 482-2243 (Sultanate of Oman (Oman)), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On August 19, 2019, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of imports of polyethylene terephthalate sheet from Korea and Oman.
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in an LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On December 3, 2019, the petitioners
For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations by 50 days (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Services Administration, renewed the Charter for the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness on November 14, 2019.
The Charter for the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness was renewed on November 14, 2019.
Richard Boll, Supply Chain Team, Room 11014, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; phone 202-482-1135; email:
The Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Services Administration, renewed the Charter for the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness on November 14, 2019. This Notice is published in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, § 9). It has been determined that the Committee is necessary and in the public interest. The Committee was established pursuant to Commerce's authority under 15 U.S.C. 1512, established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. app., and with the concurrence of the General Services Administration. The Committee provides advice to the Secretary on the necessary elements of a comprehensive policy approach to supply chain competitiveness designed to support U.S. export growth and national economic competitiveness, encourage innovation, facilitate the movement of goods, and improve the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains for goods and services in the domestic and global economy; and to provide advice to the Secretary on regulatory policies and programs and investment priorities that affect the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains. The total number of members that may serve on the Committee is a maximum of 45.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Services Administration, renewed the Charter for the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness on November 14, 2019.
The Charter for the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness was renewed on November 14, 2019.
Richard Boll, Supply Chain Team, Room 11014, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; phone 202-482-1135; email:
The Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Services Administration, renewed the Charter for the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness on November 14, 2019. This Notice is published in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, § 9). It has been determined that the Committee is necessary and in the public interest. The Committee was established pursuant to Commerce's authority under 15 U.S.C. 1512, established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. app., and with the concurrence of the General Services Administration. The Committee provides advice to the Secretary on the necessary elements of a comprehensive policy approach to supply chain competitiveness designed to support U.S. export growth and national economic competitiveness, encourage innovation, facilitate the movement of goods, and improve the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains for goods and services in the domestic and global economy; and to provide advice to the Secretary on regulatory policies and programs and investment priorities that affect the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains. The total number of members that may serve on the Committee is a maximum of 45.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before February 24, 2020.
Direct all written comments to Towanda Carey, ITA Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, OCFAO, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to David Ritchie, Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, via email at
The United States, the European Union (EU), and Switzerland share the goal of enhancing privacy protection for their citizens but take different approaches to doing so. Given those differences, the Department of Commerce (DOC) developed the EU-U.S. and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Frameworks (Privacy Shield) in consultation with the European Commission, the Swiss Administration, industry, and other stakeholders. Privacy Shield provides U.S. organizations a reliable mechanism for personal data transfers to the United States from the EU and Switzerland, while ensuring data protection that is consistent with EU and Swiss law.
The European Commission and Swiss Administration deemed the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework adequate to enable data transfers under EU and Swiss law, respectively, on July 12, 2016 and on January 12, 2017. The DOC began accepting self-certification submissions for the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield on August 1, 2016, and for the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield on April 12, 2017. More information on the Privacy
The DOC issued the Privacy Shield Principles under its statutory authority to foster, promote, and develop international commerce (15 U.S.C. 1512). The International Trade Administration (ITA) administers and supervises the Privacy Shield, including maintaining and making publicly available an authoritative list of U.S. organizations that have self-certified to the DOC. U.S. organizations submit information to ITA to self-certify their compliance with Privacy Shield.
U.S. organizations considering self-certifying to the Privacy Shield should review the Privacy Shield Framework. In summary, to participate, an organization must (a) be subject to the investigatory and enforcement powers of the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Transportation, or another statutory body that will effectively ensure compliance with the Principles; (b) publicly declare its commitment to comply with the Principles; (c) publicly disclose its privacy policies in line with the Principles; and (d) fully implement them.
Self-certification is voluntary; however, an organization's failure to comply with the Principles after its self-certification is enforceable under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibiting unfair and deceptive acts in or affecting commerce (15 U.S.C. 45(a)) or other laws or regulations prohibiting such acts.
To rely on the Privacy Shield for transfers of personal data from the EU and/or Switzerland, an organization must self-certify its adherence to the Principles to the DOC, be placed on the Privacy Shield List, and remain on the Privacy Shield List. To self-certify for the Privacy Shield, an organization must provide to the DOC the information specified in the Privacy Shield Principles via the self-certification form.
ITA has committed to follow up with organizations that have been removed from the Privacy Shield List. ITA sends questionnaires to organizations that fail to complete the annual certification or that have withdrawn from the Privacy Shield to verify whether they will return, delete, or continue to apply the Principles to the personal information that they received while they participated in the Privacy Shield. If personal information will be retained, ITA asks organizations to verify who within the organization will serve as an ongoing point of contact for Privacy Shield-related questions.
In addition, ITA has committed to conduct compliance reviews on an ongoing basis, including through sending detailed questionnaires to participating organizations. Such compliance reviews take place when: (a) The DOC receives specific non-frivolous complaints about an organization's compliance with the Principles, (b) an organization does not respond satisfactorily to DOC inquiries for information relating to the Privacy Shield, or (c) there is credible evidence that an organization does not comply with its commitments under the Privacy Shield.
The Privacy Shield self-certification is submitted electronically by organizations through the DOC's Privacy Shield website (
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that producers/exporters subject to this review made sales of subject merchandise below normal value in the United States during the period of review (POR) February 1, 2018 through January 31, 2019. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable December 26, 2019.
Thomas Martin or Maisha Cryor, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; (202) 482-3936 or (202) 482-5831, respectively.
Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (solar products) from Taiwan,
On October 30, 2019, we extended the preliminary results of this review to no later than December 5, 2019.
The merchandise covered by this order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates and/or panels consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including building integrated materials. Merchandise covered by this order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.8030, 8507.20.8040, 8507.20.8060, 8507.20.8090, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030 and 8501.31.8000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Seven of the companies under review properly filed a statement that they made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and (2) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price were calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:
Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Since the weighted-average dumping margin for the collapsed entity Sino-American Silicon Products Inc., Solartech Energy Corp. and Sunshine PV Corporation is not zero or
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by a respondent that did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries not reviewed at the all-others rate of 19.50 percent
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of solar products from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each company listed above
Commerce will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system within 30 days of publication of this notice.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), Commerce will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their case briefs, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of review is are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain companies made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value. The period of review (POR) is April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable December 26, 2019.
Rebecca Janz or Adam Simons, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2972 or (202) 482-6172, respectively.
In June 2019, Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on drawn stainless steel sinks from the People's Republic of China (China) covering the period April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019, with respect to 30 companies.
The products covered by the order include drawn stainless steel sinks from China. Imports of subject merchandise are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7324.10.0000 and 7324.10.0010. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
In accordance with Commerce's policy, the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the entity.
Commerce finds that the two mandatory respondents, Guangdong New Shichu Import and Export Company Limited (New Shichu) and KaiPing Dawn Plumbing Products, Inc. (KaiPing), have not established their eligibility for a separate rate and are considered to be part of the China-wide entity for these preliminary results. Additionally, because the following companies did not submit separate rate applications or certifications, we preliminarily determine they are ineligible for a separate rate and are part of the China-wide entity: B&R Industries Limited (B&R); Feidong Import and Export Co. Ltd. (Feidong); Guangdong G-Top Import & Export Co., Ltd. (G-Top); Jiangmen Pioneer Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Pioneer); Ningbo Afa Kitchen and Bath Co., Ltd. (Ningbo Afa); Xinhe Stainless Steel Products Co., Ltd. (Xinhe); Yuyao Afa Kitchenware Co., Ltd. (Yuyao Afa); and Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Co., Ltd. (Superte). Finally, because Zhuhai Kohler Kitchen & Bathroom Products Co. Ltd. failed to respond to Commerce's supplemental separate rate questionnaire, we preliminarily determine that this company is also ineligible for a separate rate and is part of the China-wide entity.
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address what rate to apply to respondents who are not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for non-selected respondents that are not examined individually in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act states that the all-others rate should be calculated by averaging the weighted-average dumping margins for individually-examined respondents, excluding rates that are zero,
However, for these preliminary results, we have not calculated any individual rates or assigned a company-specific rate based on facts available. Therefore, consistent with our recent practice,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019:
Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically via ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of all issues raised in the case briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless otherwise extended.
Upon completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the company listed above that has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that rate established in the final results of this review (except that if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE), produced in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) using carbon hot-rolled steel (HRS) and/or cold-rolled steel flat products (CRS) manufactured in the Republic of Korea (Korea), are circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on CORE from Korea.
Applicable December 26, 2019.
Chien-Min Yang, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5484.
On July 10, 2019, Commerce published the
The products covered by these orders are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. For a complete description of the scope of the orders,
These anti-circumvention inquiries cover CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS or CRS substrate input manufactured in Korea and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States (merchandise under consideration). These final rulings apply to all shipments of merchandise under consideration on or after the date of initiation of these inquiries. Importers and exporters of CORE produced in Vietnam using: (1) HRS manufactured in Vietnam or third countries; (2) CRS manufactured in Vietnam using HRS produced in Vietnam or third countries; and/or (3) CRS manufactured in third countries, and who qualify to
Commerce is conducting these anti-circumvention inquiries in accordance with section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in these inquiries are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix I.
We determine that exports to the United States of CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS or CRS substrate manufactured in Korea are circumventing the
As stated above, Commerce has made affirmative determinations of circumvention of the
The suspension of liquidation and cash deposit instructions will remain in effect until further notice. In order to prevent evasion, and because the AD and CVD rates established in
CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS or CRS substrate that is not of Korean origin is not subject to these inquiries. Therefore, cash deposits are not required for such merchandise. However, CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS and/or CRS from China is subject to the AD/CVD orders on CORE from China, and CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS and/or CRS from Taiwan is subject to the AD order on CORE from Taiwan. If an importer imports CORE from Vietnam and claims that the CORE was produced from non-Korean HRS or CRS substrate, in order not to be subject to cash deposit requirements, the importer and exporter are required to meet the certification and documentation requirements described in Appendix II. Exporters of CORE produced in Vietnam from non-Korea-origin HRS or CRS substrate must prepare and maintain an Exporter Certification and documentation supporting the Exporter Certification (
For these final determinations, we determine that the following companies are not eligible for the certification process: 190 Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; Chinh Dai Steel Limited; Dai Thien Loc Corporation; Formosa Ha Tinh Corporation; Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co.; Hoa Sen Group; Perstima Viet Nam; Prima Commodities Co.; Thai Nguyen Iron and Steel Corp.; Thong Nhat Flat Steel; Ton Dong A Corp.; Trung Nguyen Steel Co, Ltd.; Vietname Germany Steel JSC; Vietnam Steel Corp.; Vietnam Steel Pipe; Vian Kyoei Steel Ltd.; Vina One Steel Manufacturing; NS BlueScope Vietnam Ltd.; and Southern Steel Sheet Co., Ltd. Accordingly, importers of CORE from Vietnam that is produced and/or exported by these ineligible companies are similarly ineligible for the certification process with regard to those imports. Additionally, exporters are not eligible to certify shipments of merchandise produced by the above-listed companies. Accordingly, Hoa Phat Group Joint Stock Company and Hoa Phat Steel Sheet are not eligible to certify shipments of CRS produced by Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co.
This notice will serve as the only reminder to all parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/
These determinations are issued and published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f).
If an importer imports certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and claims that the CORE was not produced from hot-rolled steel and/or cold-rolled steel substrate (substrate) manufactured in Korea, the importer is required to complete and maintain the importer certification attached hereto as Appendix III and all supporting documentation. Where the importer uses a broker to facilitate the entry process, it should obtain the entry number from the broker. Agents of the importer, such as brokers, however, are not permitted to make this certification on behalf of the importer.
The exporter is required to complete and maintain the exporter certification, attached as Appendix IV, and is further required to provide the importer a copy of that certification and all supporting documentation.
As discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for these final determinations, we are extending the period for completing certifications for shipments and/or entries during the August 2, 2018 through July 18, 2019 period established in the
For companies that were not eligible to certify pursuant to the
Accordingly, where appropriate, the relevant bullet in the certification should be edited to reflect that the certification was completed within the time frame specified above. For example, the bullet in the importer certification that reads: “This certification was completed at or prior to the time of Entry,” could be edited as follows: “The imports referenced herein entered before July 19, 2019. This certification was completed on mm/dd/yyyy, within 30 days of the
For shipments and/or entries on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
For shipments and/or entries made on or after 10 days after the date of publication of these final determinations, parties should use the exporter and importer certifications contained below that incorporate additional information that was not in the preliminary determinations certifications. Specifically, the exporter certification now requires identification of the producer of the merchandise being exported to the United States and, also notes that CVD deposits may be required in addition to AD deposits as a result of the failure to maintain the required certification or the inability to substantiate the claims made in the certification. Similarly, the importer certification also notes that CVD deposits may be required in addition to AD deposits as a result of the failure to maintain the required certification or the inability to substantiate the claims made in the certification. The importer and Vietnamese exporter are also required to maintain sufficient documentation supporting their certifications. The importer will not be required to submit the certifications or supporting documentation to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as part of the entry process at this time. However, the importer and the exporter will be required to present the certifications and supporting documentation, to Commerce and/or CBP, as applicable, upon request by the respective agency. Additionally, the claims made in the certifications and any supporting documentation are subject to verification by Commerce and/or CBP. The importer and exporter are required to maintain the certifications and supporting documentation for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries.
In the situation where no certification is maintained for an entry, and AD/CVD orders from three countries (China, Korea, or Taiwan) potentially apply to that entry, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the
I hereby certify that:
• My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME HERE} and I am an official of {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY};
• I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the importation into the Customs territory of the United States of the corrosion-resistant steel products produced in Vietnam that entered under entry number(s) {INSERT ENTRY NUMBER(S)} and are covered by this certification. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, the importer should have “direct personal knowledge” of the importation of the product (
• I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production of the imported products covered by this certification. “Personal knowledge” includes facts obtained from another party, (
• These corrosion-resistant steel products produced in Vietnam do not contain hot-rolled steel and/or cold-rolled steel substrate produced in Korea:
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (Commerce);
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of the exporter's certification for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain and provide a copy of the exporter's certification and supporting records, upon request, to CBP and/or Commerce;
• I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
• I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:
○ Suspension of liquidation of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met and
○ the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping/countervailing duty (AD and/or CVD) cash deposits equal to the rates as determined by Commerce;
• I understand that agents of the importer, such as brokers, are not permitted to make this certification;
• This certification was completed at or prior to the time of Entry; and
• I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make materially false statements to the U.S. government.
I hereby certify that:
• My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME HERE} and I am an official of {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY};
• I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production and exportation of the corrosion-resistant steel products that were sold to the United States under invoice number(s) INSERT INVOICE NUMBER(S). “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own books and records. For example, an exporter should have “direct personal knowledge” of the producer's identity and location.
• The {MERCHANDISE} covered this certification was produced by {NAME OF PRODUCING COMPANY}, located at {ADDRESS OF PRODUCING COMPANY}; for each additional company, repeat: {NAME OF PRODUCING COMPANY}, located at {ADDRESS OF PRODUCING COMPANY}.
• These corrosion-resistant steel products produced in Vietnam do not contain hot-rolled steel and/or cold-rolled steel substrate produced in Korea:
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} must provide this Exporter Certification to the U.S. importer by the time of shipment;
• I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide a copy of this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (Commerce);
• I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
• I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:
○ suspension of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met and
○ the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping/antidumping duty (AD and/or CVD) cash deposits equal to the rates as determined by Commerce;
• This certification was completed at or prior to the time of shipment; and
• I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make materially false statements to the U.S. government.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from the Republic of Korea. The period of review (POR) is November 14, 2016 through April 30, 2018. The review covers fourteen producer and/or exporters of the subject merchandise, including POSCO, POSCO Daewoo Corporation, and POSCO Processing & Service Co., Ltd. (which are part of the POSCO single entity), as well as eleven other
Applicable December 26, 2019.
Michael Bowen or William Horn, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0768 or (202) 482-4868, respectively.
Commerce published the
The merchandise subject to the
The products subject to the investigations may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7208.40.6060, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.19.1500, 7211.19.2000, 7211.19.4500, 7211.19.6000, 7211.19.7590, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7214.10.000, 7214.30.0010, 7214.30.0080, 7214.91.0015, 7214.91.0060, 7214.91.0090, 7225.11.0000, 7225.19.0000, 7225.40.5110, 7225.40.5130, 7225.40.5160, 7225.40.7000, 7225.99.0010, 7225.99.0090, 7206.11.1000, 7226.11.9060, 7229.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.91.0500, 7226.91.1530, 7226.91.1560, 7226.91.2530, 7226.91.2560, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, and 7226.99.0180. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written product description of the scope of the
In the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we addressed all issues raised in the interested parties' case and rebuttal briefs. In the Appendix to this notice, we provide a list of the issues raised by the parties. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on-file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
In the
As a result of this review, we determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:
Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with these final results of review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where the POSCO single entity reported the entered value of its U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific
We intend to instruct CBP to take into account the “provisional measures deposit cap,” in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(d).
For each company that was not selected for individual examination, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties at a rate equal to the weighted-average dumping margin determined for that company in the final results of this review.
For each company which we determined had “no shipments” of the subject merchandise during the POR (
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each company listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established for that company in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by a producer or exporter not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the producer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of the proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 7.10 percent
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of scheduled SEDAR 60 South Atlantic Red Porgy Assessment Webinar II.
The SEDAR 60 assessment of the South Atlantic stock of Red Porgy will consist of a data webinar, an in-person workshop, and a series assessment webinars.
The SEDAR 60 Red Porgy Assessment Webinar II has been scheduled for Monday, February 6, 2020, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., EST.
Kathleen Howington, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions,
The items of discussion at the SEDAR 60 Red Porgy Assessment webinar II are as follows:
• Finalize modelling discussion.
• Review projection results and address the terms of reference.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council office (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of reports; public meetings, and hearings.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) has begun its annual preseason management process for the 2020 ocean salmon fisheries. This document announces the availability of Pacific Council documents, as well as the dates and locations of upcoming Pacific Council meetings and public hearings hosted by the Pacific Council. These documents and events comprise the Pacific Council's complete schedule for determining the annual proposed and final modifications to ocean salmon fishery management measures. The agendas for the March and April 2020 Pacific Council meetings will be published in subsequent
Written comments on the salmon management alternatives must be received by 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, March 27, 2020.
Documents will be available from the Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384; telephone: (503) 820-2280 (voice) or (503) 820-2299 (fax). Written comments should be sent electronically to Mr. Phil Anderson, Chair, Pacific Fishery Management Council, via the Pacific Council's E-Portal by visiting
Ms. Robin Ehlke, telephone: (503) 820-2280.
All public hearings begin at 7 p.m. on the dates and locations specified below:
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the STT meeting agendas may come before the STT for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal STT action during these meetings. STT action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and to any issues arising after publication of this document requiring emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the STT's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These public meetings and hearings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280 (voice), or (503) 820-2299 (fax) at least ten days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The Proclamation includes restrictions and prohibitions regarding activities in the Monument consistent with the authority provided by the Act. The Proclamation prohibits access to the Monument except when passing through the Monument without interruption or as allowed under a permit issued by the agencies. Vessels passing through the Monument without interruption are required to notify the agencies upon entering into and leaving the Monument. Individuals wishing to access the Monument to conduct certain regulated activities must first apply for and be granted a permit issued by the agencies pursuant to the Proclamation. Applicants must also certify compliance with certain vessel monitoring system requirements.
The information submitted in permit applications will, in general, only be used at the time the application is submitted to make a final decision on the application. Some of the information may also be used subsequent to the initial decision making to inform management actions or decision making. For example, a survey of a project location by one permit applicant may be used by the agencies in the future to respond to a vessel grounding in the same area in addition to facilitating the agencies' decision on that application. Information submitted in a report will be used to periodically assess the permittee's compliance with permit terms and conditions and to assist in evaluating the appropriateness of the permitted activity.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a joint advisory panel meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a joint meeting of its Law Enforcement Advisory Panel, Deepwater Shrimp Advisory Panel, and Shrimp Advisory Panel via webinar to discuss proposed management action in Shrimp Amendment 11.
The webinar meeting will be held on January 17, 2020, at 10 a.m.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The webinar meeting will begin at 10 a.m. Registration information will be posted on the Council's website at
The draft regulatory amendment addresses transit provisions for shrimp vessels through federal waters that are closed to shrimp harvest due to cold weather. Advisory panel members will receive an overview of the amendment from Council staff, discuss, and provide recommendations as appropriate.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
To ensure consideration, written or on-line comments must be submitted on or before February 24, 2020.
Direct all written comments to Adrienne Thomas, PRA Officer, NOAA, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 159, Asheville, NC 28801 (or via the internet
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Shannon Sprague, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 207, Annapolis, MD 21403, 410-267-5664 or
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Environmental Literacy Indicator Tool (ELIT) was developed to monitor public school districts' capacity and progress towards meeting the environmental literacy goal of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement (
NOAA, on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Program, will ask the state education agencies for Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia to survey their local education agencies (LEAs) to determine: (1) LEA capacity to implement a comprehensive and systematic approach to environmental literacy education, (2) student participation in Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences during the school year, (3) sustainability practices at schools, and (4) LEA needs for improving environmental literacy education programming. LEAs (generally school districts, in some cases charter school administration) are asked to complete the survey on the status of their LEA on a set of key indicators for the four areas listed above. One individual from each LEA is asked to complete this survey once every two years.
In addition to monitoring progress on the environmental literacy goal of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, the information collected will inform several Chesapeake Bay Program partner agencies' work to support the school districts' environmental literacy education efforts.
The results of the biennial ELIT survey will be analyzed and reported to the internal stakeholders of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. Participating states will receive a summarized report of findings for the full watershed, a summary of findings for their state, and comparisons of results between states. These aggregated results will be used by the state agencies to understand progress of their school districts over time, and to inform decision-making about strategies and priorities for future work with school districts.
The biennial reporting will also be used by the Chesapeake Bay Program to understand progress of school districts in the watershed, understand differences between jurisdictions, and guide strategy for providing targeted support in each state.
State agencies and other stakeholders will also have access to the responses of each public school district, which they will use to customize outreach and support to a particular school district, based on their status and needs.
Respondents will submit their information electronically on web-based survey forms.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public hearings.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a series of public hearings via webinar pertaining to Framework Amendment 9 to the Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region. The amendment addresses commercial trip limits in the Atlantic Northern Zone for commercial Spanish mackerel.
The public hearings will be held via webinar on January 22 and 23, 2020. See
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The public hearings will be conducted via webinar, accessible via the internet from the Council's website at
The draft amendment currently addresses commercial Spanish mackerel trip limits in the Atlantic Northern Zone (New York/Connecticut/Rhode Island line to the North Carolina/South Carolina line). Stakeholders have expressed concern about closures to commercial Spanish mackerel harvest in federal waters off the Atlantic Northern Zone. Framework Amendment 9 proposes a trip limit reduction in the Northern Zone to help extend the commercial Spanish mackerel season in federal waters.
During the public hearings, Council staff will present an overview of the amendment and will be available for informal discussions and to answer questions via webinar. Members of the public will have an opportunity to go on record to record their comments for consideration by the Council.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce, and Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Interior.
Notice of initiation of 5-year review; request for information.
NMFS and USFWS announce the initiation of a 5-year review for the following distinct population segments (DPS) of loggerhead sea turtle (
To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we must receive your information no later than February 24, 2020.
You may submit information on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2019-0150, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Adrienne Lohe at the above address, by phone at (301) 427-8442 or
This notice announces our review of the following loggerhead sea turtle DPSs: The endangered Mediterranean Sea DPS, the endangered Northeast Atlantic Ocean DPS, the endangered North Indian Ocean DPS, the endangered South Pacific Ocean, the threatened Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, the threatened South Atlantic Ocean DPS, the threatened Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS, and the threatened Southwest Indian Ocean DPS (76 FR 58868; September 22, 2011). It does not include the North Pacific Ocean DPS review, which we initiated in 2016 (81 FR 70394; October 12, 2016). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. This will be the first review of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean and foreign loggerhead DPSs since they were listed in 2011. The regulations in 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the
Background information on all DPSs of loggerhead is available on the NMFS website at:
To ensure that the reviews are complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting new information from the public, governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, environmental entities, and any other interested parties concerning the status of all loggerhead DPSs other than the North Pacific Ocean DPS. Categories of requested information include: (1) Species biology including, but not limited to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics; (2) habitat conditions including, but not limited to, amount, distribution, and important features for conservation; (3) status and trends of threats to the species and its habitats; (4) conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species, including monitoring data demonstrating effectiveness of such measures; (5) need for additional conservation measures; and (6) other new information, data, or corrections including, but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes and improved analytical methods for evaluating extinction risk.
If you wish to provide information for the reviews, you may submit your information and materials electronically or via mail (see
16 U.S.C. 1531
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Marine recreational fishing catch and effort data are collected through a combination of mail surveys, telephone surveys and on-site intercept surveys with recreational anglers. The Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) Fishing Effort Survey (FES) is a self-administered, household mail survey that samples from a residential address frame to collect data on the number of recreational anglers and the number of recreational fishing trips. The survey estimates marine recreational fishing activity for all coastal states from Maine through Mississippi, as well as Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
FES estimates are combined with estimates derived from complementary surveys of fishing trips, the Access-Point Angler Intercept Survey, to estimate total, state-level fishing catch, by species. These estimates are used in the development, implementation, and monitoring of fishery management programs by NOAA Fisheries, regional fishery management councils, interstate marine fisheries commissions, and state fishery agencies.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 67 Assessment Webinar II for Gulf of Mexico vermilion snapper.
The SEDAR 67 stock assessment process for Gulf of Mexico vermilion snapper will consist of a series of data and assessment webinars.
The SEDAR 67 Assessment Webinar II will be held January 23, 2020, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion during the Assessment Webinar are as follows:
1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the data webinars, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.
2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The electronic logbook (ELB) regulations for the Gulf shrimp fishery may be found at 50 CFR 622.51(a)(2). These regulations require vessel owners or operators issued a Federal commercial permit for Gulf shrimp to participate in the NMFS-sponsored ELB reporting program. There are approximately 1,410 valid or renewable Federal permits to commercially harvest shrimp from Federal waters in the Gulf. Reporting through a vessel's ELB, such owners or operators must provide information regarding the size and number of shrimp trawls deployed, the
Monitoring shrimp vessels is challenging for NMFS when they operate together with many other fishing vessels of differing sizes, gears types, and fishing capabilities. Monitoring is made even more challenging by seasonal variability in shrimp abundance and price and the broad geographic distribution of the fleet. ELBs provide a precise means of estimating the amount of shrimp fishing effort. Using ELBs to estimate fishing effort serves an important role to help estimate bycatch in the Gulf shrimp fleet.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of this notice publication by email to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
To ensure that activities qualify under exceptions to or exemptions from the take prohibitions, local, state, and federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, academic researchers, and private organizations are asked to submit detailed information regarding their activity on a schedule to be determined by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) staff. This information is used by NMFS to (1) track the number of Southern DPS fish taken as a result of each action; (2) understand and evaluate the cumulative effects of each action on the Southern DPS; and (3) determine whether additional protections are needed for the species, or whether additional exceptions may be warranted. NMFS designed the criteria to ensure that actions meeting the criteria would adequately limit impacts on threatened Southern DPS fish, such that additional protections in the form of a federal take prohibition would not be necessary and advisable.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Notice of renewal of information collection; request for comment.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites comments on the extension of an existing information collection: 0651-0081 (Law School Clinic Program).
Written comments must be submitted on or before February 24, 2020.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Dahlia George, Office of Enrollment and Discipline, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-4097; or by email to
Public Law 113-227 (Dec. 16, 2014) requires the United States Patent and Trademark Office to establish regulations and procedures for application to, and participation in, the USPTO Law School Clinic Certification Program. The Program allows students enrolled in a participating law school's clinic to practice patent or trademark law before the USPTO under the direct supervision of a faculty clinic supervisor. Each clinic provides legal services on a pro bono basis for clients who qualify for assistance from the law school's clinic. By drafting, filing, and prosecuting patent and trademark applications, students gain valuable experience that would otherwise be unavailable to them while in law school. The program also facilitates the provision of pro bono services to trademark and patent applicants who lack the financial resources necessary for traditional legal representation. In 2019, there were over 60 law schools participating in the program.
This information collection covers the applications from law schools that wish to enter the program, faculty advisors who seek to become a faculty clinic supervisor, and students who seek to participate in this program. The collection also includes the required biannual reports from participating law school clinics and biennial renewals required by the program as well as the request to make special under the Law School Clinic Certification Program, which allows a limited number of applications per semester to be advanced out of turn (accorded special status) for examination if the applicant makes the appropriate showing, to provide law students with practical experience as they will be more likely to receive substantive examination of applications within the school year that the application is filed.
By mail, facsimile, hand delivery, or electronically to the USPTO.
The USPTO expects that intellectual property attorneys will complete most of the items in this collection at an estimated rate of $438 per hour. The attorney rates are found in the 2017
There are no filing fees associated with this collection.
Currently, the USPTO does not use automated or other technological collection techniques for the items in this collection of information, but submissions are accepted electronically through email. Submissions are also accepted via postal mail and hand delivery. The USPTO expects that 75 percent of the items in this collection will be submitted electronically. Of the remaining 25 percent, the USPTO estimates that 99 percent will be submitted by mail—with the remainder submitted by hand delivery—for a total of 225 mailed submissions. The average USPS Priority Mail postage cost for a legal flat rate envelope is estimated to be $7.65. Table 4 calculates the postage costs associated with this collection.
Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the total annual (non-hour) cost burden for this collection, in the form of postage costs is $1,721 per year.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The USPTO is soliciting public comments to:
(a) 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;
(b) 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;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) 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,
10:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 8, 2020.
Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Examinations and enforcement matters. In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.
5 U.S.C. 552b.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before January 27, 2020.
Comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB within 30 days of this notice's publication by either of the following methods. Please identify the comments by “OMB Control No. 3038-0096.”
•
•
A copy of all comments submitted to OIRA should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) by either of the following methods. The copies should refer to “OMB Control No. 3038-0096.”
•
• By Hand Delivery/Courier to the same address; or
• Through the Commission's website at
A copy of the supporting statement for the collection of information discussed herein may be obtained by visiting
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Meghan Tente, Acting Associate Director, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5785, email:
On September 25, 2019, the Commission published in the
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 24, 2020.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Stephanie Stullich, 202-245-6468.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in
This package is the first of two OMB clearance requests for this study. This package requests approval for selection and recruitment of nationally representative samples of school districts and schools and collection of certain preliminary information from states (
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 24, 2020.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this.
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), U.S. Department of Education.
Notice of membership.
This notice lists the members of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI). This notice is required under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Room 271-03, Washington, DC 20202.
George Alan Smith, Acting Executive Director/Designated Federal Official, NACIQI, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Room 271-03, Washington, DC 20202, telephone: (202) 453-7757, or email
This notice is required under Section 114(e)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).
The NACIQI is established under Section 114 of the HEA, and is composed of 18 members appointed—
(A) On the basis of the individuals' experience, integrity, impartiality, and good judgment;
(B) From among individuals who are representatives of, or knowledgeable concerning, education and training beyond secondary education, representing all sectors and types of institutions of higher education; and,
(C) On the basis of the individuals' technical qualifications, professional standing, and demonstrated knowledge in the fields of accreditation and administration of higher education.
The NACIQI meets at least twice a year and advises the Secretary of Education with respect to:
• The establishment and enforcement of the standards of accrediting agencies or associations under subpart 2 of part G of Title IV of the HEA;
• The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations;
• The preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations;
• The eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under Title IV of the HEA, together with recommendations for improvements in such process;
• The relationship between (1) accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and (2) State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions; and
• Any other advisory functions relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary of Education may prescribe by regulation.
The term of office of each member is six years. Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which the member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of such term.
The current members of the NACIQI are:
• Ronnie L. Booth, Ph.D., Former President, Tri-County Technical College, Anderson, South Carolina.
• Wallace E. Boston, Ph.D., President, American Public University System, Inc., Charles Town, West Virginia.
• David A. Eubanks, Ph.D., Assistant Vice President for Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, Furman University, Greenville, South Carolina.
• D. Michael Lindsay, Ph.D., President, Gordon College, Wenham, Massachusetts.
• Mary Ellen Petrisko, Ph.D., Education Consultant, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
• Kathleen Sullivan Alioto, Ed.D., Strategic Advisor, Fundraiser, and Consultant, New York, New York, San Francisco, California, and Boston, Massachusetts.
• George T. French, Jr., Ph.D., President, Miles College, Fairfield, Alabama.
• Brian W. Jones, J.D., President, Strayer University, Washington, DC.
• Arthur E. Keiser, Ph.D., Chancellor, Keiser University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
• Ralph Wolff, J.D., President, The Quality Assurance Commons for Higher and Postsecondary Education, Oakland, California.
• Jill Derby, Ph.D., Senior Consultant, Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, Gardnerville, Nevada.
• Paul J. LeBlanc, Ph.D., President, Southern New Hampshire University, Manchester, New Hampshire.
• Anne D. Neal, J.D., President, The Garden Club of America, Washington, DC.
• Richard F. O'Donnell, Founder and CEO, Skills Fund, Austin, Texas.
• Claude O. Pressnell Jr., Ed.D., President, Tennessee Independent Colleges and Universities Association, Nashville, Tennessee.
• Steven Van Ausdle, Ph.D., President Emeritus, Walla Walla Community College, Walla Walla, Washington.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
20 U.S.C. 1011c.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Department of Energy.
Notice of open teleconference.
This notice announces an open teleconference call of the State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Thursday, January 16, 2020 from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (ET). To receive the call-in number and passcode, please contact the Board's Designated Federal Officer at the address or phone number listed below.
Jay Nathwani, DFO, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585. Phone number 202-586-9410, and email:
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice and request for comments.
EIA is requesting a three-year extension without changes of Form EIA-914
EIA must receive all comments on this proposed information collection no later than February 24, 2020. If you anticipate any difficulties in submitting your comments by the deadline, contact the person listed in the
Submit comments electronically to
If you need additional information, contact Jessica Biercevicz, U.S. Energy Information Administration, telephone (202) 586-4299, or by email at
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Comments are invited on whether or not: (a) The proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions, including whether the information will have a practical utility; (b) EIA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used, is accurate; (c) EIA can improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the information it will collect; and (d) EIA can minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, such as automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “National Estuary Program (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1500.10, OMB Control No. 2040-0138) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through September 30, 2020. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 24, 2020.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0369, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Vince Bacalan, Oceans, Wetlands, and Communities Division; Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, (Mail Code 4504T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-0930; fax number: 202-566-1336; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Prospective grant recipients seek funding to develop or oversee and coordinate implementation of Comprehensive Conservation Management Plans (CCMPs) for estuaries of national significance. In order to receive funds, grantees must submit an annual workplan to EPA which are used to track performance of each of the 28 estuary programs currently in the NEP. EPA provides funding to NEPs to support long-term implementation of CCMPs if such programs pass a program evaluation process. The primary purpose of the program evaluation process is to help EPA determine whether the 28 programs included in the National Estuary Program (NEP) are making adequate progress implementing their CCMPs and therefore merit continued funding under Sec. 320 of the Clean Water Act. EPA also requests that each of the 28 NEPs receiving Sec. 320 funds report information that can be used in the GPRA reporting process. This reporting is done on an annual basis and is used to show environmental results that are being achieved within the overall National Estuary Program. This information is ultimately submitted to Congress along with GPRA information from other EPA programs.
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
Notice.
Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), and the FASAB Rules Of Procedure, as amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given
The exposure draft is available on the FASAB website at
Respondents are encouraged to comment on any part of the exposure draft. Written comments are requested by January 31, 2020, and should be sent to
Ms. Monica R. Valentine, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), 31 U.S.C. 3511(d).
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before January 27, 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, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page <
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before February 24, 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, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email:
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The reporting requirement contained in Section 95.2109 states that Prior to operating a LPRS transmitter with an AMTS, the AMTS licensee must notify, in writing, each television station that may be affected by such operations, as defined in Section 80.215(h). The notification provided with the station's license application is sufficient to satisfy this requirement if no new television stations would be affected.
The information collection requirement contained in Section 95.2195 requires that manufacturers of LPRS transmitters used for auditory assistance, health care assistance, and law enforcement tracking purposes must include with each transmitting device the following statement:
This transmitter is authorized by rule under the Low Power Radio Service (47 CFR part 95) and must not cause harmful interference to TV reception or to the United States Air Force Space Surveillance System operating in the 216.88-217.08 MHz band. With the exception of automated maritime telecommunications system (AMTS) devices, you do not need an FCC license to operate this transmitter. This
Please note that Sections 95.1015(a) and (b) were renumbered to Sections 95.2195 and 95.2109 via FCC 17-57.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Financial Statements for Holding Companies (FR Y-9 Reports; OMB No. 7100-0128). The revisions are applicable as of December 31, 2019.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) OMB submission, including the reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files. These documents also are available on the Federal Reserve Board's public website at
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the PRA to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files.
FR Y-9C (non-advanced approaches HCs with less than $5 billion in total assets): 40.48 hours; FR Y-9C (non-advanced approaches HCs with $5 billion or more in total assets): 46.34 hours; FR Y-9C (advanced approaches HCs): 47.59 hours; FR Y-9LP: 5.27 hours; FR Y-9SP: 5.40 hours; FR Y-9ES: 0.50 hours; FR Y-9CS: 0.50 hours.
FR Y-9C (non-advanced approaches HCs with less than $5 billion in total assets), FR Y-9C (non-advanced approaches HCs with $5 billion or more in total assets), FR Y-9C (advanced approaches HCs), and FR Y-9LP: 1.00 hour; FR Y-9SP, FR Y-9ES, and FR Y-9CS: 0.50 hours.
FR Y-9C (non-advanced approaches HCs with less than $5 billion in total assets): 25,098 hours; FR Y-9C (non-advanced approaches HCs with $5 billion or more in total assets): 35,033 hours; FR Y-9C (advanced approaches HCs): 3,617 hours; FR Y-9LP: 9,149 hours; FR Y-9SP: 42,768 hours; FR Y-9ES: 42 hours; FR Y-9CS: 472 hours.
FR Y-9C (non-advanced approaches HCs with less than $5 billion in total assets): 620 hours; FR Y-9C (non-advanced approaches HCs with $5 billion or more in total assets): 756 hours; FR Y-9C (advanced approaches HCs): 76 hours; FR Y-9LP: 1,736 hours; FR Y-9SP: 3,960 hours; FR Y-9ES: 42 hours; FR Y-9CS: 472 hours.
The FR Y-9LP, which collects parent company only financial data, must be submitted by each HC that files the FR Y-9C, as well as by each of its subsidiary HCs.
The FR Y-9SP is a parent company only financial statement filed semiannually by HCs with total consolidated assets of less than $3 billion. In a banking organization with total consolidated assets of less than $3 billion that has tiered HCs, each HC in the organization must submit, or have the top-tier HC submit on its behalf, a separate FR Y-9SP. This report is designed to obtain basic balance sheet and income data for the parent company, and data on its intangible assets and intercompany transactions.
The FR Y-9ES is filed annually by each employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) that is also an HC. The report collects financial data on the ESOP's benefit plan activities. The FR Y-9ES consists of four schedules: A Statement of Changes in Net Assets Available for Benefits, a Statement of Net Assets Available for Benefits, Memoranda, and Notes to the Financial Statements.
The FR Y-9CS is a free-form supplemental report that the Board may utilize to collect critical additional data
With respect to the FR Y-9C report, Schedule HI's item 7(g) “FDIC deposit insurance assessments,” Schedule HC-P's item 7(a) “Representation and warranty reserves for 1-4 family residential mortgage loans sold to U.S. government agencies and government sponsored agencies,” and Schedule HC-P's item 7(b) “Representation and warranty reserves for 1-4 family residential mortgage loans sold to other parties” are considered confidential commercial and financial information. Such treatment is appropriate under exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)), because these data items reflect commercial and financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by the submitter, and which the Board has previously assured submitters will be treated as confidential. It also appears that disclosing these data items may reveal confidential examination and supervisory information, and in such instances, this information would also be withheld pursuant to exemption 8 of the FOIA, (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)), which protects information related to the supervision or examination of a regulated financial institution.
In addition, for both the FR Y-9C report and the FR Y-9SP report, Schedule HC's memorandum item 2.b., the name and email address of the external auditing firm's engagement partner, is considered confidential commercial information and protected by exemption 4 of the FOIA, (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)), if the identity of the engagement partner is treated as private information by HCs. The Board has assured respondents that this information will be treated as confidential since the collection of this data item was proposed in 2004.
Aside from the data items described above, the remaining data items on the FR Y-9C report and the FR Y-9SP report are generally not accorded confidential treatment. The data items collected on FR Y-9LP, FR Y-9ES, and FR Y-9CS
To the extent the instructions to the FR Y-9C, FR Y-9LP, FR Y-9SP, and FR Y-9ES reports each respectively direct the financial institution to retain the workpapers and related materials used in preparation of each report, such material would only be obtained by the Board as part of the examination or supervision of the financial institution. Accordingly, such information may be considered confidential pursuant to exemption 8 of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). In addition, the workpapers and related materials may also be protected by exemption 4 of the FOIA, to the extent such financial information is treated as confidential by the respondent (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)).
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is seeking public comment on its proposal to extend for an additional three years the current PRA clearance to participate in the OMB program “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Service Delivery.” The current FTC clearance under this program expires on May 31, 2020.
Comments must be submitted by February 24, 2020.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Bridget Small, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, CC-10402, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3266.
The types of collections that the proposed generic clearance covers include, but are not limited to:
• Customer comment cards/complaint forms;
• Small discussion groups;
• Focus groups of customers, potential customers, delivery partners, or other stakeholders;
• Cognitive laboratory studies, such as those used to refine questions or assess usability of a website;
• Qualitative customer satisfaction surveys (
• In-person observation testing (
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.
Pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC invites comments on: (1) Whether the disclosure, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are necessary, including whether the resulting information will be practically useful; (2) the accuracy of our burden estimates, including whether the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (3) how to improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the disclosure requirements; and (4) how to minimize the burden of providing the required information to consumers.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before February 24, 2020. Write “FTC Generic Clearance ICR, Project No. P035201” on your comment. Your comment, including your name and your state, will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including the
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it through the
If you file your comment on paper, write “FTC Generic Clearance ICR, Project No. P035201” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, please submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the public record, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before February 24, 2020. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
NIOSH gives notice of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees from the Reduction Pilot Plant in Huntington, West Virginia, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.
Grady Calhoun, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 513-533-6800. Information requests can also be submitted by email to
Pursuant to 42 CFR 83.12, the initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:
42 CFR 83.9-83.12.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by February 24, 2020.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, HHS.
Final notice.
This final notice announces our decision to approve an application from Accreditation Association of Hospitals/Health Systems—Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for critical access hospitals that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
This final notice is effective December 27, 2019 through December 27, 2025.
Lillian Williams, (410) 786-8636. Anita Moore, (410) 786-2161.
Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services in a critical access hospital (CAH) provided certain requirements are met by the CAH. Section 1861(mm) of the Social Security Act (the Act), sets out definitions for “critical access hospital” and for inpatient and outpatient CAH services. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 485, subpart F specify the conditions that a CAH must meet to participate in the Medicare program, the scope of covered services, and the conditions for Medicare payment for CAHs.
Generally, to enter into an agreement, a CAH must first be certified by a State survey agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 485 of our regulations. Thereafter, the CAH is subject to regular surveys by a State survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements. There is an alternative; however, to surveys by State agencies.
Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by an approved national accrediting organization that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we will deem those provider entities as having met the requirements. Accreditation by an accrediting organization is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.
If an accrediting organization is recognized by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program would be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. A national accrediting organization applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, subpart A, must provide the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) with reasonable assurance that the accrediting organization requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of accrediting organizations are set forth at § 488.5. The regulations at § 488.5(e)(2)(i) require an accrediting organization to reapply for continued approval of its accreditation program every 6 years or as determined by CMS. The Accreditation Association of Hospitals/Health Systems—Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Programs (AAHHS-HFAP) current term of approval for its CAH accreditation program expires December 27, 2019.
Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at 42 CFR 488.5 require that our findings concerning review and approval of a national accrediting organization's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying accrediting organization's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide CMS with the necessary data for validation.
Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act further requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.
In the July 31, 2019
• The equivalency of AAHHS-HFAP's standards for CAHs as compared with CMS' CAH conditions of participation (CoP).
• AAHHS-HFAP's survey process to determine the following:
++ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training.
++ The comparability of AAHHS-HFAP's processes to those of State agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.
++ AAHHS-HFAP's processes and procedures for monitoring a CAH found
++ AAHHS-HFAP's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.
++ AAHHS-HFAP's capacity to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.
++ The adequacy of AAHHS-HFAP's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.
++ AAHHS-HFAP's capacity to adequately fund required surveys.
++ AAHHS-HFAP's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to assure that surveys are unannounced.
++ AAHHS-HFAP's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as CMS may require (including corrective action plans).
++ AAHHS-HFAP's policies and procedures to avoid conflicts of interest, including the appearance of conflicts of interest, involving individuals who conduct surveys or participate in accreditation decisions.
In accordance with section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the July 31, 2019 proposed notice also solicited public comments regarding whether AAHHS-HFAP's requirements met or exceeded the Medicare CoPs for CAHs. No comments were received in response to our proposed notice.
We compared AAHHS-HFAP's CAH accreditation requirements and survey process with the Medicare CoPs of part 485, and the survey and certification process requirements of parts 488 and 489. Our review and evaluation of AAHHS-HFAP's CAH application, which were conducted as described in section III of this final notice, yielded the following areas where, as of the date of this notice, AAHHS-HFAP has completed revising its standards and certification processes in order to meet the requirements at:
• § 485.623(c)(6) through § 485.623(c)(6)(ii), to revise its standards to clarify that either evacuation or a fire watch is required.
• § 485.625(d)(1)(i), to address the requirement that initial training in emergency preparedness policies, procedures, including prompt reporting and extinguishing of fire, protection, and where necessary, evacuation of patients, personnel, and guest, fire prevention, and cooperation with firefighting and disaster authorities, to all new and existing staff, and individuals providing services under arrangement, and volunteers, consistent with their expected roles.
• § 485.625(e)(3), to revise its standard that CAHs that do not maintain an onsite fuel source to power emergency generators are not required to have a plan for maintaining such fuel source in emergency circumstances.
• § 488.26(b), to ensure that surveyors are assessing compliance with the hospital CoPs in CAH psychiatric and rehabilitation Distinct Part Unit (DPUs).
Based on our review and observations described in section III of this final notice, we have approved AAHHS/HFAP's as a national accreditation organization for CAHs that request participation in the Medicare program, effective December 27, 2019 through December 25, 2025.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Requesting FDA Feedback on Combination Products.” The purpose of this guidance is to discuss ways in which combination product sponsors can obtain feedback from FDA on scientific and regulatory questions and to describe best practices for FDA and sponsors when interacting on these topics. These interactions can occur through application-based mechanisms, such as the pre-submission process used in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and the Center for Biologics and Research (CBER) and the formal meetings used in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and CBER, or through Combination Product Agreement Meetings (CPAMs), as appropriate.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by February 24, 2020 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Office of Combination Products, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 32, Rm. 5129, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Melissa Burns, Office of Combination Products, Food and Drug Administration, 301-796-5616,
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry and FDA staff entitled “Requesting FDA Feedback on Combination Products.” The purpose of this guidance is to discuss ways in which combination product sponsors can obtain feedback from the Agency on scientific and regulatory questions. These interactions can occur through application-based mechanisms, such as the pre-submission process used in CDRH and CBER and the formal meetings used in CDER and CBER, or through CPAMs, as appropriate.
We are publishing this guidance consistent with the Agency's ongoing commitment to enhancing clarity and transparency regarding regulatory considerations for combination products, and in accordance with the mandate under section 503(g)(8)(C)(vi) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 353(g)(8)(C)(vi)), which was added by section 3038 of the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255) (Cures Act). Section 503(g)(8)(C)(vi) requires FDA to issue a final guidance addressing: (1) The structured process for managing pre-submission interactions with sponsors developing combination products; (2) best practices to ensure FDA feedback in such pre-submission interactions represents the Agency's best advice based on the information provided during these pre-submission interactions; and (3) how CPAMs relate to other FDA meeting types, what information should be submitted prior to a CPAM, and the form and content of agreements reached through a CPAM.
FDA is in the process of operationalizing the procedures related to submission and receipt of a CPAM request. Therefore, if a sponsor wishes to submit a CPAM request to FDA at this time, the sponsor should first contact the Product Jurisdiction Office for the lead Center (
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Requesting FDA Feedback on Combination Products.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. ”Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance
•
○ Include the product name, description of the overall combination product and constituent parts, indications for use statement, and, as applicable, route of administration and dosing information.
○ Include, as relevant:
For a drug- or biological product-led combination product that includes a device constituent part, a device description, design diagram or other image, and identify components that are part of the device.
For a device-led combination product, provide the chemical name, established or proper name (if available), and structure, for the drug and/or biological product constituent part(s).
For a device-led combination product, provide the route of administration and/or dosing information for the drug and/or biological product constituent part(s).
For combination products that contain an active ingredient that is included in an approved drug product that the sponsor seeks to cross reference or rely upon in its submission, identify the application number of the approved product.
For combination products that contain a device constituent part that is a cleared or approved device that the sponsor seeks to cross reference, identify the application or submission number for the previously cleared or approved device.
•
•
•
•
•
FDA has not received any CPAM requests since the enactment of the Cures Act in December 2016. FDA estimates that less than one CPAM request will be received per year by each medical product center (CBER, CDER, and CDRH). To provide a conservative estimate of burden, FDA estimates that approximately one CPAM request will be submitted per year to each medical product center. FDA estimates that it will take sponsors approximately 25 hours to compile and draft the information that this draft guidance recommends should be included in a CPAM request.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
This draft guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information pertaining to orphan drug provisions in 21 CFR part 316 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0167; the collections of information pertaining to investigational device exemption submission provisions in 21 CFR part 812 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information pertaining to investigational new drug submission provisions in 21 CFR part 312 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; and the collections of information pertaining to biologics licensing submission
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC, the Committee). The general function of the Committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on February 14, 2020, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
For those unable to attend in person, the meeting will also be webcast and will be available at the following link:
Serina Hunter-Thomas, Office of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 1-877-287-1373, email:
• MR0000159: VLN
• MR0000160: VLN
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Serina Hunter-Thomas at least 7 days in advance of the meeting (see
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
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 27, 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
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262), all biological products, including human blood and blood components, offered for sale in interstate commerce must be licensed and meet standards, including those prescribed in the FDA regulations, designed to ensure the continued safety, purity, and potency of such products. In addition, under section 361 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 264), FDA may issue and enforce regulations necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases between the States or possessions or from foreign countries into the States or possessions. Further, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 351) provides that drugs and devices (including human blood and blood components) are adulterated if they do not conform with current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) assuring that they meet the requirements of the FD&C Act. Establishments manufacturing biological products, including human blood and blood components, must comply with the applicable CGMP regulations (parts 211, 606, and 820 (21 CFR parts 211, 606, and 820)) and current good tissue practice (CGTP) regulations (part 1271 (21 CFR part 1271)) as appropriate. FDA regards biological product deviation (BPD) reporting and HCT/P deviation reporting to be an essential tool in its directive to protect public health by establishing and maintaining surveillance programs that provide timely and useful information.
Section 600.14 (21 CFR 600.14), in brief, requires the manufacturer who holds the biological product license, for other than human blood and blood components, and who had control over a distributed product when the deviation occurred, to report to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) or to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) as soon as possible but at a date not to exceed 45 calendar days after acquiring information reasonably suggesting that a reportable event has occurred. Section 606.171, in brief, requires licensed manufacturers of human blood and blood components, including Source Plasma, unlicensed registered blood establishments, and transfusion services, who had control over a distributed product when the deviation occurred, to report to CBER as soon as possible but at a date not to exceed 45 calendar days after acquiring information reasonably suggesting that a reportable event has occurred. Similarly, § 1271.350(b), in brief, requires HCT/P establishments that manufacture non-reproductive HCT/Ps described in § 1271.10 to investigate and report to CBER all HCT/P deviations relating to a distributed HCT/P that relates to the core CGTP requirements, if the deviation occurred in the establishment's facility or in a facility that performed a manufacturing step for the establishment under contract, agreement or other arrangement. Form FDA 3486 is used to submit BPD reports and HCT/P deviation reports.
Respondents to this collection of information are: (1) Licensed manufacturers of biological products other than human blood and blood components, (2) licensed manufacturers of blood and blood components including Source Plasma, (3) unlicensed registered blood establishments, (4) transfusion services, and (5) establishments that manufacture non-reproductive HCT/Ps regulated solely under section 361 of the PHS Act as described in § 1271.10. The number of respondents and total annual responses are based on the BPD reports and HCT/P deviation reports FDA received in fiscal year 2018. The number of licensed manufacturers and total annual responses under § 600.14 include the estimates for BPD reports submitted to both CBER and CDER. Based on the information from industry, the estimated average time to complete a deviation report is 2 hours, which includes a minimal one-time burden to create a user account for those reports submitted electronically. The availability of the standardized report form, Form FDA 3486, and the ability to submit this report electronically to CBER (CDER does not currently accept electronic filings) further streamlines the report submission process.
CBER has developed a Web-based addendum to Form FDA 3486 (Form FDA 3486A) to provide additional information when a BPD report has been reviewed by FDA and evaluated as a possible recall. The additional information requested includes information not contained in the Form FDA 3486 such as: (1) Distribution pattern; (2) method of consignee notification; (3) consignee(s) of products for further manufacture; (4) additional product information; (5) updated product disposition; and (6) industry recall contacts. This information is requested by CBER through email notification to the submitter of the BPD report. This information is used by CBER for recall classification purposes. CBER estimates that 5 percent of the total BPD reports submitted to CBER would need additional information submitted in the addendum. CBER further estimates that it would take between 10 to 20 minutes to complete the addendum. For calculation purposes, CBER is using 15 minutes.
Activities such as investigating, changing standard operating procedures or processes, and followup are currently required under 21 CFR parts 211 (approved under OMB control number 0910-0139), 606 (approved under OMB control number 0910-0116), 820 (approved under OMB control number 0910-0073), and 1271 (approved under OMB control number 0910-0543) and, therefore, are not included in the burden calculation for the separate requirement of submitting a deviation report to FDA.
In the
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall increase of 739 hours and a corresponding increase of 398 responses. We attribute this adjustment to an increase in the number of submissions we received over the last few years.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before January 27, 2020.
Submit your comments to
Sherrette Funn,
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
The purpose of this collection is, in order to route product developers to the most appropriate personnel within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), HHS collects some basic information about the company's product through
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before January 27, 2020.
Submit your comments to
Sherrette Funn,
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice and request for comments. Request for extension of approval.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Indian Health Service (IHS) invites the general public to comment on the information collection titled, “Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act Contracts,” Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 0917-0037. IHS is requesting OMB to approve an extension for this collection, which expires on February 29, 2020.
C
Send your written comments, requests for more information on the collection, or requests to obtain a copy of the data collection instrument and instructions to Captain Kelly Battese by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
This previously approved information collection project was last published in the
Representatives of the IHS seek renewal of the approval for information collections conducted under 25 CFR part 900, implementing the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), as amended (25 U.S.C. 5301
The information requirements for this rule represent significant differences from other agencies in several respects. Under the Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is directed to enter into self-determination contracts with Tribes or eligible Tribal Organizations upon request, unless specific declination criteria apply, and, generally, contractors may renew these contracts annually, whereas other agencies provide grants on a discretionary or competitive basis. Additionally, IHS awards contracts for multiple programs whereas other agencies usually award single grants to Tribes.
The IHS uses the information collected to determine applicant eligibility, evaluate applicant capabilities, protect the service population, safeguard Federal funds and other resources, and permit the Federal agency to administer and evaluate contract programs. Tribal Governments or Tribal Organizations provide the information by submitting contract proposals, and related information, to the IHS, as required under Public Law 93-638. No third party notification or public disclosure burden is associated with this collection.
The IHS requests your comments on this collection concerning: (a) The necessity of this information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents.
Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.
It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice; request for comments.
The Coast Guard announces the availability of, and seeks comments on, the recertification of the Prince William Sound Regional Citizen's Advisory Council (PWSRCAC) for March 2, 2020 through February 28, 2021. Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), the Coast Guard may certify the PWSRCAC on an annual basis. This advisory group monitors the activities of terminal facilities and crude oil tankers under the Prince William Sound program established by the statute. The Coast Guard may certify an alternative voluntary advisory group in lieu of the PWSRCAC. The current certification for the PWSRCAC will expire March 1, 2020.
Public comments on PWSRCAC's recertification application must reach the Seventeenth Coast Guard District on or before February 10, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2019-0946 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions on this recertification, call or email LT Ian McPhillips, Seventeenth Coast Guard District (dpi); telephone (907) 463-2809; email
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking,
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
The Coast Guard does not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one on or before February 10, 2020 using the method specified under
The Coast Guard published guidelines on December 31, 1992 (57 FR 62600), to assist groups seeking recertification under the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight and Monitoring Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2732) (the Act). The Coast Guard issued a policy statement on July 7, 1993 (58 FR 36504), to clarify the factors that the Coast Guard would be considering in making its determination as to whether advisory groups should be certified in accordance with the Act, and the procedures which the Coast Guard would follow in meeting its certification responsibilities under the Act. Most recently, on September 16, 2002 (67 FR 58440), the Coast Guard changed its policy on recertification procedures for regional citizen's advisory council by requiring applicants to provide comprehensive information every three years. For the two years in between, applicants only submit information describing substantive changes to the information provided at the last triennial recertification. This is the year in this triennial cycle that PWSRCAC must provide comprehensive information.
The Coast Guard is accepting comments concerning the recertification of PWSRCAC. At the conclusion of the comment period on February 10, 2020, the Coast Guard will review all application materials and comments received and will take one of the following actions:
(a) Recertify the advisory group under 33 U.S.C. 2732(o);
(b) Issue a conditional recertification for a period of 90 days, with a statement of any discrepancies, which must be corrected to qualify for recertification for the remainder of the year; or
(c) Deny recertification of the advisory group if the Coast Guard finds that the group is not broadly representative of the interests and communities in the area or is not adequately fostering the goals and purposes of 33 U.S.C. 2732.
The Coast Guard will notify PWSRCAC by letter of the action taken on its application. A notice will be published in the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS.
Notice.
This notice announces that the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection is designating an approved Native American tribal card issued by the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community to U.S. citizen tribal members as an acceptable travel document for purposes of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The approved card may be used to denote identity and citizenship of Swinomish Indian Tribal Community members entering the United States from contiguous territory or adjacent islands at land and sea ports of entry.
This designation will become effective on December 26, 2019.
Colleen Manaher, Executive Director, Planning, Program Analysis, and Evaluation, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, via email at
Section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), Public Law 108-458, as amended, required the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary), in consultation with the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a plan to require U.S. citizens and individuals for whom documentation requirements have previously been waived under section 212(d)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(4)(B)) to present a passport or other document or combination of documents as the Secretary deems sufficient to denote identity and citizenship for all travel into the United States.
Under the WHTI Land and Sea Final Rule, one type of citizenship and identity document that may be presented upon entry to the United States at land and sea ports of entry from contiguous territory or adjacent islands
A United States qualifying tribal entity is defined as a tribe, band, or other group of Native Americans formally recognized by the United States Government which agrees to meet WHTI document standards.
The Secretary has delegated to the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) the authority to designate certain documents as acceptable border crossing documents for persons arriving in the United States by land or sea from within the Western Hemisphere, including certain United States Native American tribal cards.
The WHTI Land and Sea Final Rule allowed U.S. federally recognized Native American tribes to work with CBP to enter into agreements to develop tribal ID cards that can be designated as acceptable to establish identity and citizenship when entering the United States at land and sea ports of entry from contiguous territory or adjacent islands. CBP has been working with various U.S. federally recognized Native American tribes to facilitate the development of such cards.
After production of the cards in accordance with the specified requirements, and successful testing and auditing by CBP of the cards and program, the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Commissioner of CBP may designate the Native American tribal card as an acceptable WHTI-compliant document for the purpose of establishing identity and citizenship when entering the United States by land or sea from contiguous territory or adjacent islands. Such designation will be announced by publication of a notice in the
The Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona became the first Native American tribe to have its Native American tribal card designated as a WHTI-compliant document by the Commissioner of CBP. This designation was announced in a notice published in the
The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community has voluntarily established a program to develop a WHTI-compliant Native American tribal card that denotes identity and U.S. citizenship. On October 7, 2015, CBP and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to develop, issue, test, and evaluate tribal cards to be used for border crossing purposes. Pursuant to this MOA, the cards are issued to members of the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community who can establish identity, tribal membership, and U.S. citizenship. The cards incorporate physical security features acceptable to CBP as well as facilitative technology allowing for electronic validation of identity, citizenship, and tribal membership by CBP.
CBP has tested the cards developed by the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community pursuant to the above MOA and related agreements, and has performed an audit of the tribe's card program. On the basis of these tests and audit, CBP has determined that the Native American tribal cards meet the requirements of section 7209 of the IRTPA and are acceptable documents to denote identity and U.S. citizenship for purposes of entering the United States at land and sea ports of entry from contiguous territory or adjacent islands. CBP's continued acceptance of the Native American tribal card as a WHTI-compliant document is conditional on compliance with the MOA and related agreements.
Acceptance and use of the WHTI-compliant Native American tribal card
This notice announces that the Commissioner of CBP designates the Native American tribal card issued by the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community in accordance with the MOA and related agreements as an acceptable WHTI-compliant document pursuant to section 7209 of the IRTPA and 8 CFR 235.1(e). In accordance with these provisions, the approved card, if valid and lawfully obtained, may be used to denote identity and U.S. citizenship of Swinomish Indian Tribal Community members for the purposes of entering the United States from contiguous territory or adjacent islands at land and sea ports of entry.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing (PIH), HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Dawn Smith, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-6488, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Smith.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The Department is submitting this PRA request in order to reinstate, without change, a previously approved collection that has an upcoming PRA expiration date.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management
Dawn Smith, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 3178, Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-6488, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Smith.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This leaves a gap in HUD's information collection of PBVs between the individual tenant data and the aggregated PHA data. HUD does not systematically collect information on the development or project level, including the number of units at PBV projects, what exceptions apply, their rents, the terms of contract, and numerous other potential data points. This creates a challenge for monitoring, tracking and analyzing PBV projects, and limits HUD's ability to respond to requests for information on the PBV program from Congress and other sources. Additionally, it prevents HUD from having data with which to make informed decisions on risk-mitigation strategies with respect to PBVs.
Potential risks are particularly heightened in the case of two specific program categories; Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) that transition to be Project Based Vouchers and PHA-owned units where an independent entity performs inspections and determines the rent amounts. What distinguishes RAD PBVs from regular Project-Based Vouchers is their initial construction was paid for by HUD, rents are initially set below market level, and they are supposed to remain affordable in perpetuity. Currently, HUD has very limited information about RAD-PBV properties after their conversion and is unable to adequately monitor their long-term viability. PHA-owned PBVs pose a risk because PHAs may assist properties they own, subject to the independent entity requirement. PHAs may assist properties they own, subject to the independent entity requirement In addition, many other non-RAD or PHA-owned projects, such as those with 100% PBVs serving disabled or requiring supporting services represent crucial affordable housing resources for vulnerable communities that cannot be quickly and easily replaced through providing a voucher.
Through this collection, HUD is requiring the submission of project-level data on all Project-Based Vouchers, including but not limited to Rental Assistance Demonstration Project Based-Vouchers, mixed finance Project-Based Vouchers, all Project-Based Vouchers at Moving to Work Agencies, and all Project Based Vouchers at non-Moving to Work Agencies.
The fields of collection for PBV projects may include:
HUD recognizes that some of this information may be submitted to HUD, for instance as part of the initial subsidy layering review process, however, these submissions are insufficient to give HUD a universal and currently accurate picture of the Project Based Voucher universe. Therefore, HUD is proposing this information collection.
A unique number assigned to a Form HUD-52530-A (PBV HAP Contract—New Construction or Rehabilitation) or Form HUD-52530-B (PBV HAP Contract—Existing Housing) (hereinafter “HAP contract”) executed for the project, which may be produced by the system or a protocol for numbering may be established by HUD.
The name of the project as determined by the PHA as used in public or property records (where such records contain a name of the property as a whole) or the commonly used name of the project (such as the name on a sign at the property entrance). If no such name exists, a name for the project designated by the PHA for use in the system. “Project” is defined consistent with 24 CFR 983.3(b) as “a single building, multiple contiguous buildings, or multiple buildings on contiguous parcels of land.”
The street address, city, state, and zip code of the building or buildings covered by the HAP contract and all units covered under the HAP contract.
Total number of units in the project covered by the Form HUD-52523-A and Form HUD-52523-B (Agreement to Enter into a Housing Assistance Payment Contract) (hereinafter “AHAP”).
Total number of contract units in the project covered by the HAP contract, broken out by each bedroom size (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5+).
Total number of units in the project, including those covered by an AHAP or HAP contract and non-contract units.
The most closely matching description of the project from among this list: Elevator Structure, Mixed Type, Row or Townhouse Style (Separate Entrances), Semi Detached, Single Family/Detached, Walkup/Multifamily Apt (Shared Entrance).
The following definitions apply consistent with 24 CFR 983.3(b), as amended by 82 FR 5458 (Jan. 18, 2017), 82 FR 32461 (Jul. 14, 2017):
Housing units that already exist on the proposal selection date and that substantially comply with the HQS on that date.
Housing units that exist on the proposal selection date, but do not substantially comply with the HQS on that date, and are developed, pursuant to an Agreement between the PHA and owner, for use under the PBV program.
Housing units that do not exist on the proposal selection date and are developed after the date of selection pursuant to an Agreement between the PHA and owner for use under the PBV program.
Upon amendment of 24 CFR 983.3(b), the new definitions therein will supersede the definitions listed here.
Effective date(s) listed in § 1.4 of Part 1 the AHAP. A single-stage project will have the same Agreement effective date for all contract units. A multi-stage project will separate effective dates for each stage.
Effective date(s) listed in § 1(d) of Part 1 of the HAP contract. A single-stage project will have the same effective date for all contract units. For a multi-stage project, include the dates of each stage and the contract units covered by each stage.
The HAP contract term end date, as determined by adding the length of the HAP contract term (initial and any extensions) to the effective date listed in § 1(d) of Part 1 of the HAP contract (for a multi-stage project, use the effective date of the first stage). The length of the initial and extension HAP contract terms shall be those listed in the HAP contract (for existing projects: § 1(d) of Part 1 of the Form HUD-52530-B HUD and associated exhibits; for newly constructed and rehabilitated projects: § 1(e) of Part 1 of the Form HUD-52530-A and associated exhibits).
The owner name as listed in § 1(a) of Part 1 of the HAP contract and contact information (telephone and email).
The owner's federal tax identification number.
Name of the company or agency that manages the property and contact information (telephone and email).
The following definitions apply consistent with 24 CFR part 983, as amended by 82 FR 5458 (Jan. 18, 2017), 82 FR 32461 (Jul. 14, 2017):
(1) PHA-owned:
a. Owned by the PHA (which includes a PHA having a “controlling interest” in the entity that owns the unit);
b. Owned by an entity wholly controlled by the PHA; or
c. Owned by a limited liability company (LLC) or limited partnership in which the PHA (or an entity wholly controlled by the PHA) holds a controlling interest in the managing member or general partner.
“Controlling interest” means:
a. Holding more than 50 percent of the stock of any corporation;
b. Having the power to appoint more than 50 percent of the members of the board of directors of a non-stock corporation (such as a non-profit corporation);
c. Where more than 50 percent of the members of the board of directors of any corporation also serve as directors, officers, or employees of the PHA;
d. Holding more than 50 percent of all managing member interests in an LLC;
e. Holding more than 50 percent of all general partner interests in a partnership; or
f. Having equivalent levels of control in other ownership structures. Most ownership structures are already covered in the categories listed above. This last category is meant to cover any ownership structure not already listed in the categories above. Also, under this category (f), a PHA must have more than 50 percent control in that ownership structure (an equivalent level of control) for the project to be considered PHA-owned.
(2) PHA ownership interest: An ownership interest means that the PHA or its officers, employees, or agents are in an entity that holds any direct or indirect interest in the project in which the units are located, including, but not limited to, an interest as:
a. Titleholder;
b. Lessee;
c. Stockholder;
d. Member, or general or limited partner; or
e. Member of a limited liability corporation.
(3) No PHA ownership interest: The PHA has no ownership interest in the property.
Upon amendment of 24 CFR part 983, the new definitions therein will supersede the definitions listed here.
If the project is PHA-owned, the independent entity or entities which perform the following functions consistent with 24 CFR part 983:
1. Review the PHA's PBV selection process.
2. Establish PBV contract rents (initial rent to owner and redetermined rent to owner).
3. Determine rent reasonableness.
4. Provide a copy of the rent reasonableness determination to the PHA and the HUD field office where the project is located.
5. Establish term of initial and any renewal HAP contract as required in 24 CFR 983.205.
6. Inspect units.
7. Provide a copy of the inspection report to PHA and HUD field office where the project is located.
List any HUD voucher authority other than regular Housing Choice Vouchers used to provide PBVs to the project (
List the population(s) served if the project contains units specifically made available for or exclusively made available to a specific population. If some units are not specifically made available for or exclusively made available to a specific population listed below, mark “General.” The definitions of each population are found in the following locations, consistent with 24 CFR parts 5, 983, as amended by 82 FR 5458 (Jan. 18, 2017), 82 FR 32461 (Jul. 14, 2017):
1. Homeless: PIH Notice 2017-21, Attachment D.
2. Veterans: PIH Notice 2017-21, Attachment D.
3. Families eligible for supportive services: PIH Notice 2017-21, Attachments D and E.
4. Families receiving supportive services: PIH Notice 2017-21, Attachment E.
5. Elderly family: 24 CFR 5.403.
6. Disabled family: 24 CFR 5.403.
Upon amendment of 24 CFR part 983, the new definitions therein will supersede the definitions listed here.
Provide an answer (yes/no) to the question of whether the project qualifies for an exception to the income-mixing requirement under 24 CFR 983.56, as amended by 82 FR 5458 (Jan. 18, 2017), 82 FR 32461 (Jul. 14, 2017).
Choose the applicable exception from among those allowed by 24 CFR 983.56, as amended by 82 FR 5458 (Jan. 18, 2017), 82 FR 32461 (Jul. 14, 2017). The definitions of the exception categories are found in the following locations:
1. Units that are exclusively made available to households eligible for supportive services: PIH Notice 2017-21, Attachment E.
2. Units that are specifically made available for families receiving supportive services: PIH Notice 2017-21, Attachment E, for grandfathered projects as described therein.
3. Units that are exclusively made available to elderly families: PIH Notice 2017-21, Attachment E.
4. Units that are specifically made available for disabled families: PIH Notice 2017-21, Attachment E, for grandfathered projects as described therein.
5. Units located in a census tract with a poverty rate of 20 percent or less: PIH Notice 2017-21, Attachment E.
6. Units that were previously subject to certain federal rent restrictions or receiving another type of long-term housing subsidy provided by HUD: PIH Notice 2017-21, Attachment F, for projects that meet the additional requirements as described therein.
7. RAD PBV units: PIH Notice 2017-21, Attachment F.
8. HUD-VASH vouchers specifically designated for project-based assistance: PIH Notice 2017-21, Attachment F.
Upon amendment of 24 CFR part 983, the new definitions therein will supersede the definitions listed here.
If the project has supportive services available to residents so as to qualify for an exception to 24 CFR 983.56
Provide an answer (yes/no) to the question of whether the PHA has included the vacancy payment provision in this HAP contract (for existing projects: § 1(e)(2) of Part 1 of the Form HUD-52530-B HUD; for newly constructed and rehabilitated projects: § 1(f)(2) of Part 1 of the Form HUD-52530-A).
Provide an answer (yes/no) to the question of whether the project qualifies for an exception to the program cap under 24 CFR 983.6, as amended by 82 FR 5458 (Jan. 18, 2017), 82 FR 32461 (Jul. 14, 2017).
Choose the applicable exception from among those allowed by 24 CFR 983.6, as amended by 82 FR 5458 (Jan. 18, 2017), 82 FR 32461 (Jul. 14, 2017). The definitions of the exception categories are found in the following locations:
1. Units that are specifically made available to house homeless individuals and families: PIH Notice 2017-21, Attachment D.
2. Units that are specifically made available to house families that are comprised of or include a veteran: PIH Notice 2017-21, Attachment D.
3. Units that provide supportive housing to persons with disabilities or to elderly persons: PIH Notice 2017-21, Attachment D.
4. Units located in a census tract with a poverty rate of 20 percent or less: PIH Notice 2017-21, Attachment D.
5. Units that were previously subject to certain federal rent restrictions or receiving another type of long-term housing subsidy provided by HUD: PIH Notice 2017-21, Attachment F, for projects that meet the additional requirements as described therein.
6. RAD PBV units: PIH Notice 2017-21, Attachment F.
7. HUD-VASH vouchers specifically designated for project-based assistance: PIH Notice 2017-21, Attachment F.
Upon amendment of 24 CFR part 983, the new definitions therein will supersede the definitions listed here.
Code may be produced by the system or a protocol for numbering may be established by HUD.
Provide an answer (yes/no) to the question of whether the project is subject to a use restriction imposed by HUD. If yes, provide the end date of the use restriction.
Number of PBVs that converted under the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program.
Code may be produced by the system or a protocol for numbering may be established by HUD.
The year the project's construction was first completed.
This field captures the number of PBV-assisted units at the project that are accessible for persons with mobility impairments in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and HUD's implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 8. Such units must meet either the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) or 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards (in accordance with HUD's Deeming Notice published in the
PHAs would be required to enter this information into the online form when a new project came under Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contract, and when project or development information changed. The unique project code identifier will tie to future potential changes to the 50058 which will permit linking HUD assisted-tenants to HUD assisted-properties. This is a new information collection.
Our burden estimate for the number of respondents is based on a recent VMS total of the number of PHAs reporting PBVs in VMS. It is assumed PHAs will have to do a one-time submission for all the projects as well as potentially make updates when changes occur to the PBV projects (frequency of responses). The “responses per annum” represents an estimate of the amount of PBV projects that will need to be entered into the system. This number is multiplied by the frequency of responses to arrive at an annual estimate of burden hours. This is then multiplied by median average wage of a “Management Analyst” according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2019 to arrive at a total annual cost.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(5) In this information collection, HUD has proposed collecting information on PBV-assisted units in PBV projects that are Section 504 accessible. Would it be feasible and useful to also collect this information on non-assisted units at PBV projects that do not receive PBV assistance Project-Based Voucher projects? Are there any potential barriers to collecting this information?
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on these applications. Before issuing any of the requested permits, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.
We must receive your written comments on or before January 27, 2020.
Use one of the following methods to request documents or submit comments. Requests and comments should specify the applicant name(s) and application number(s) (
•
•
Abby Gelb, 413-253-8212 (phone), or
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications for permits under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities that constitute take of listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity. The ESA's definition of “take” includes such activities as pursuing, harassing, trapping, capturing, or collecting in addition to hunting, shooting, harming, wounding, or killing.
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, and Federal agencies; Tribes; and the public to comment on the following applications.
Written comments we receive become part of the administrative record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Moreover, all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
If we decide to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Las Cruces District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The RAC will hold a full-day field trip and a half-day public meeting on January 22 and 23, 2020, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The public comment period is scheduled for 11:30 a.m. on January 23.
The field trip will originate and end at the BLM Las Cruces District Office, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, NM 88001. The meeting will be held at the same address. The public may send written comments to the RAC at this same address, Attn: Bill Childress. In order to be considered during the meeting, comments must be received no later than January 17, 2020.
Designated Federal Official Bill Childress, BLM Las Cruces District, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, NM 88001, telephone: 575-525-4421, email:
The 10-member Las Cruces District RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the Las Cruces District.
A field trip will take RAC members to several areas in the District related to the Rincon Watershed Restoration Project and ongoing collaborative efforts. The planned meeting agenda includes updates on current and proposed land/realty, planning, and energy projects in the Las Cruces District, including an update on the American Magnesium Mining Plan of Operation. In addition, the RAC will discuss the field trip points about the Rincon Watershed Restoration Project.
The field trip and meeting are open to the public. Persons wishing to attend the field trip will need to provide their own transportation. In addition, persons wishing to make comments during the public comment period should register in person with the BLM by 11:00 a.m. on the meeting day, at the meeting location. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment, the length of comments may be limited.
National Indian Gaming Commission, Interior.
Second notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission) is announcing its submission, concurrently with the publication of this notice or soon thereafter, of the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The Commission is seeking comments on the renewal of information collections for the following activities: Compliance and enforcement actions under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act as authorized by OMB Control Number 3141-0001; tribal gaming ordinance approvals, background investigations, and issuance of licenses as authorized by OMB Control Number 3141-0003; National Environmental Policy Act submissions as authorized by OMB Control Number 3141-0006; and issuance to tribes of certificates of self-regulation for class II gaming as authorized by OMB Control Number 3141-0008. These information collections all expire on January 31, 2020.
The OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection requests, but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, public comments should be submitted to OMB by no later than January 27, 2020 in order to be assured of consideration.
Submit comments directly to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Policy Analyst/Desk Officer for the National Indian Gaming Commission. Comments can also be emailed to <
For further information, including copies of the proposed collections of information and supporting documentation, contact Tim Osumi at (202) 632-7054; fax (202)
The gathering of this information is in keeping with the purposes of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA or the Act), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701,
Section 571.7(a) requires Indian gaming operations to keep/maintain permanent books of account and records sufficient to establish the amount of gross and net income, deductions and expenses, receipts and disbursements, and other relevant financial information. Section 571.7(c) requires that these records be kept for at least five years. Under § 571.7(b), the Commission may require a gaming operation to submit statements, reports, accountings, and specific records that will enable the NIGC to determine whether or not such operation is liable for fees payable to the Commission (and in what amount). Section 571.7(d) requires a gaming operation to keep copies of all enforcement actions that a tribe or a state has taken against the operation.
Section 571.12 requires tribes to prepare comparative financial statements covering all financial activities of each class II and class III gaming operation on the tribe's Indian lands, and to engage an independent certified public accountant to provide an annual audit of the financial statements of each gaming operation. Section 571.13 requires tribes to prepare and submit to the Commission two paper copies or one electronic copy of the financial statements and audits, together with management letter(s) and other documented auditor communications and/or reports as a result of the audit, setting forth the results of each fiscal year. The submission must be sent to the Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year of each gaming operation, including when a gaming operation changes its fiscal year or when gaming ceases to operate. Section 571.14 requires tribes to reconcile quarterly fee reports with audited financial statements and to keep/maintain this information to be available to the NIGC upon request in order to facilitate the performance of compliance audits.
This information collection is mandatory and allows the Commission to fulfill its statutory responsibilities under IGRA to regulate gaming on Indian lands.
Sections 519.1 and 519.2 require a tribe, management contractor, and a tribal operator to designate an agent for service of process, and § 522.2(g) requires it to be submitted by written notification to the Commission. Section 522.2(a) requires a tribe to submit a copy of an ordinance or resolution certified as authentic, and that meets the approval requirements in 25 CFR 522.4(b) or 522.6. Sections 522.10 and 522.11 require tribes to submit, respectively, an ordinance for the licensing of individually owned gaming operations other than those operating on September 1, 1986, and for the licensing of individually owned gaming operations operating on September 1, 1986. Section 522.3(a) requires a tribe to submit an amendment to an ordinance or resolution within 15 days after adoption of such amendment.
Section 522.2(b)-(h) requires tribes to submit to the Commission: (i) Procedures that the tribe will employ in conducting background investigations
Section 556.4 requires tribes to mandate the submission of the following information from applicants for key employee and PMO positions: (i) Name(s), Social Security number(s), date and place of birth, citizenship, gender, and languages; (ii) present and past business and employment positions, ownership interests, business and residential addresses, and driver's license number(s); (iii) the names and addresses of personal references; (iv) current business and personal telephone numbers; (v) a description of any existing and previous business relationships with Indian tribes, including ownership interests; (vi) a description of any existing and previous business relationships with the gaming industry generally, including ownership interests; (vii) the name and address of any licensing/regulatory agency with which the person has filed an application for a license or permit related to gaming, even if the license or permit was not granted; (viii) for each ongoing felony prosecution or conviction, the charge, the name and address of the court, and the date and disposition, if any; (ix) for each misdemeanor conviction or ongoing prosecution within the past 10 years, the name and address of the court and the date and disposition; (x) for each criminal charge in the past 10 years that is not otherwise listed, the criminal charge, the name and address of the court, and the date and disposition; (xi) the name and address of any licensing/regulatory agency with which the person has filed an application for an occupational license or permit, even if the license or permit was not granted; (xii) a photograph; and (xiii) fingerprints. Sections 556.2 and 556.3 require tribes to place a specific Privacy Act notice on their key employee and PMO applications, and to warn applicants regarding the penalty for false statements by also placing a specific false statement notice on their applications.
Sections 556.6(a) and 558.3(e) require tribes to keep/maintain the individuals' complete application files, investigative reports, and eligibility determinations during their employment and for at least three years after termination of their employment. Section 556.6(b)(1) requires tribes to create and maintain an investigative report on each background investigation that includes: (i) The steps taken in conducting a background investigation; (ii) the results obtained; (iii) the conclusions reached; and (iv) the basis for those conclusions. Section 556.6(b)(2) requires tribes to submit, no later than 60 days after an applicant begins work, a notice of results of the applicant's background investigation that includes: (i) The applicant's name, date of birth, and Social Security number; (ii) the date on which the applicant began or will begin work as a key employee or PMO; (iii) a summary of the information presented in the investigative report; and (iv) a copy of the eligibility determination.
Section 558.3(b) requires a tribe to notify the Commission of the issuance of PMO and key employee licenses within 30 days after such issuance. Section 558.3(d) requires a tribe to notify the Commission if the tribe does not issue a license to an applicant, and requires it to forward copies of its eligibility determination and notice of results to the Commission for inclusion in the Indian Gaming Individuals Record System. Section 558.4(e) requires a tribe, after a gaming license revocation hearing, to notify the Commission of its decision to revoke or reinstate a gaming license within 45 days of receiving notification from the Commission that a specific individual in a PMO or key employee position is not eligible for continued employment.
These information collections are mandatory and allow the Commission to carry out its statutory duties.
Amongst other actions necessary to carry out the Commission's statutory duties, the Act requires the NIGC Chair to review and approve third-party management contracts that involve the operation of tribal gaming facilities. 25 U.S.C. 2711. The Commission has taken the position that the NEPA process is triggered when a tribe and a potential contractor seek approval of a management contract. Normally, an EA or EIS and its supporting documents are prepared by an environmental consulting firm and submitted to the Commission by the tribe. In the case of an EA, the Commission independently evaluates the NEPA document, verifies its content, and assumes responsibility for the accuracy of the information contained therein. In the case of an EIS, the Commission directs and is responsible for the preparation of the NEPA document, but the tribe or potential contractor is responsible for paying for the preparation of the document. The information collected includes, but is not limited to, maps, charts, technical studies, correspondence from other agencies (federal, tribal, state, and local), and comments from the public. These information collections are mandatory and allow the Commission to carry out its statutory duties.
Section 518.3(e) requires a tribe's gaming operation(s) and the tribal regulatory body (TRB) to have kept all records needed to support the petition for self-regulation for the three years immediately preceding the date of the petition submission. Section 518.4 requires a tribe petitioning for a certificate of self-regulation to submit the following to the Commission, accompanied by supporting documentation: (i) Two copies of a petition for self-regulation approved by the tribal governing body and certified as authentic; (ii) a description of how the tribe meets the eligibility criteria in § 518.3; (iii) a brief history of each gaming operation, including the opening dates and periods of voluntary or involuntary closure(s); (iv) a TRB organizational chart; (v) a brief description of the criteria that individuals must meet before being eligible for employment as a tribal regulator; (vi) a brief description of the process by which the TRB is funded, and the funding level for the three years immediately preceding the date of the petition; (vii) a list of the current regulators and TRB employees, their complete resumes, their titles, the dates that they began employment, and if serving limited terms, the expiration date of such terms; (viii) a brief description of the accounting system(s) at the gaming operation that tracks the flow of the gaming revenues; (ix) a list of the gaming activity internal controls at the gaming operation(s); (x) a description of the recordkeeping system(s) for all investigations, enforcement actions, and prosecutions of violations of the tribal gaming ordinance or regulations, for the three-year period immediately preceding the date of the petition; and (xi) the tribe's current set of gaming regulations, if not included in the approved tribal gaming ordinance. Section 518.10 requires each Indian gaming tribe that has been issued a certificate of self-regulation to submit to the Commission the following information by April 15th of each year following the first year of self-regulation, or within 120 days after the end of each gaming operation's fiscal year: (i) An annual independent audit; and (ii) a complete resume for all TRB employees hired and licensed by the tribe subsequent to its receipt of a certificate of self-regulation.
Submission of the petition and supporting documentation is voluntary. Once a certificate of self-regulation has been issued, the submission of certain other information is mandatory.
Regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, require that interested members of the public have an opportunity to comment on an agency's information collection and recordkeeping activities.
The Commission will submit the preceding requests to OMB to renew its approval of the information collections. The Commission is requesting a three-year term of approval for each of these information collection and recordkeeping activities.
You are again invited to comment on these collections concerning: (i) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burdens (including the hours and cost) of the proposed collections of information, including the validity of the methodologies and assumptions used; (iii) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (iv) ways to minimize the burdens of the information collections on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or forms of information technology. It should be noted that as a result of the Commission reviewing its own records that track the number of tribal and/or management contractor submissions and after surveying tribal gaming operators, tribal gaming regulatory authorities, and/or management contractors regarding the Commission's submission and recordkeeping requirements, many of the previously published burden estimates have changed since the publication of the Commission's 60-day notice on July 1, 2019. If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send your comments to the office listed under the
Comments submitted in response to this second notice will be summarized and become a matter of public record. The NIGC will not request nor sponsor a collection of information, and you need not respond to such a request, if there is no valid OMB Control Number.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before November 30, 2019, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by January 10, 2020.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before November 30, 2019. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers:
An owner objection was received for the following resource:
A request for removal has been made for the following resource:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resources:
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before December 7, 2019, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by January 10, 2020.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before December 7, 2019. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers:
Nominations submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nominations and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nominations and supports listing the properties in the National Register of Historic Places.
Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of an investigation and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1465 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of 4th tier cigarettes from Korea, provided for in subheading 2402.20.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by February 3, 2020. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by February 10, 2020.
December 18, 2019.
Lawrence Jones ((202) 205-3358), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this investigation and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
This investigation is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) has issued an Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, should the Commission find a violation. This notice is soliciting public interest comments from the public only. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to Commission rules.
Carl Bretscher, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2382. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Section 337”), provides that if the Commission finds a violation, it shall direct that the concerned articles be excluded from entry into the United States, unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds such articles should not be excluded from entry. 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1). A similar provision applies to cease and desist orders. 19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(1).
The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation, specifically, whether the Commission should issue: (1) A limited exclusion order (“LEO”) against infringing movable barrier operator systems and components thereof that are combined into infringing products after importation that are imported into the United States, sold for importation, or sold in the United States after importation by respondents Nortek, Inc. of Providence, Rhode Island; Nortek Security & Control, LLC of Carlsbad, California; and GTO Access Systems of Tallahassee, Florida (collectively, “Nortek”); and (2) cease and desist orders (“CDO”) against the Nortek respondents.
The Commission is interested in developing the record on the public interest in this investigation. The parties are to file their public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). Members of the public are hereby invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the ALJ's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond that issued in this investigation on November 25, 2019. Comments should address whether issuance of an LEO or CDO in this investigation, if a violation is found, would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended orders are used in the United States;
(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainants, their licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) Indicate whether complainants, complainants' licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended exclusion order and/or a cease and
(v) Explain how the LEO and CDO would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions from the public must be filed no later than the close of business on Friday, January 17, 2020.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadline stated above and submit eight (8) true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1118”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or first page. (
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has found a violation of section 337 in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission has determined to issue tailored remedial orders that permit researchers to continue their work in ongoing research projects using the infringing microfluidic devices as explained in the accompanying opinion. These remedial orders include: (1) A limited exclusion order (“LEO”) prohibiting the unlicensed entry of infringing microfluidic devices covered by certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,500,664 (“the '664 patent”); 9,636,682 (“the '682 patent”); and 9,649,635 (“the '635 patent”) that are manufactured abroad for or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of 10X Genomics, Inc. of Pleasanton, California (“10X”) or any of its affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other related business entities, or its successors or assigns; and (2) a cease and desist order (“CDO”) directed against 10X and its affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other related business entities, or its successors or assigns. This investigation is terminated.
Ron Traud, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3427. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
On September 6, 2017, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. of Hercules, California; and Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC of Livermore, California. 82 FR 42115 (Sept. 6, 2017). The complaint (and supplement thereto) alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”) based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain microfluidic devices by reason of infringement of one or more claims of the '664 patent, the '682 patent, the '635 patent, and U.S. Patent Nos. 9,089,844 (“the '844 patent”) and 9,126,160 (“the '160 patent).
Prior to the issuance of the final initial determination (“ID”) by the presiding administrative law judge (the “ALJ”), the investigation was terminated as to the '844 patent in its entirety and as to certain claims of the '160, '664, '682, and '635 patents.
On September 20, 2018, the ALJ issued the final ID, which finds 10X in violation of section 337 as to the remaining asserted claims of the '664, '682 patent, and '635 patents. On September 28, 2018, the ALJ issued her recommendations on remedy, bond, and the public interest. The ALJ recommended that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order directed to 10X's infringing products and a cease and desist order directed to 10X. The ALJ also recommended a bond of 100 percent of entered value during the
The private parties petitioned for the Commission to review certain of the ALJ's determinations. On December 4, 2018, after considering the parties' petitions and responses thereto, the Commission determined to review the following issues:
(1) Whether 10X indirectly infringes the '682 and '635 patents;
(2) Whether 10X's Chip GB infringes claims 1 and 14 of the '664 patent; and
(3) Whether 10X's Chip SE infringes claim 20 of the '160 patent and claim 1 of the '664 patent.
On June 10, 2019, the Commission requested supplemental briefing on the public interest. 84 FR 27802 (June 14, 2019); 84 FR 31912 (July 3, 2019) (modifying briefing schedule). Thereafter, the parties, members of the public, and a government agency submitted public interest briefing.
On review, and consistent with the simultaneously-issued Commission opinion, the Commission has determined to affirm with modification the final ID's finding of a violation of section 337 with respect to claims 1, 2, 14, and 15 of the '664 patent, claims 14, 16, and 17 of the '682 patent, and claims 1, 13, 14, 16, and 21 of the '635 patent.
The Commission has further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in subsections (d)(l) and (f)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(l), (f)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the above-referenced remedial orders. However, the Commission has determined to tailor the LEO and CDO to allow research studies using the infringing articles at issue as of the date of issuance of the remedial orders to continue to use those infringing articles.
The Commission has determined to impose a bond of three (3) percent of entered value of the covered products during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)).
This investigation is terminated.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Notice of application.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is providing notice of an application it has received from an entity applying to be registered to manufacture in bulk basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I. Prior to making decisions on this and other pending applications, DEA intends to promulgate regulations that govern the program of growing marihuana for scientific and medical research under DEA registration.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before February 24, 2020.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference Docket No. DEA-562 in all correspondence, including attachments.
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) prohibits the cultivation and distribution of marihuana except by persons who are registered under the CSA to do so for lawful purposes. In accordance with the purposes specified in 21 CFR 1301.33(a), DEA is providing notice that the entity identified below has applied for registration as a bulk manufacturer of schedule I controlled substances. In response, registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections of the requested registration, as provided in this notice. This notice does not constitute any evaluation or determination of the merits of the application submitted.
The applicant plans to manufacture bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for product development and distribution to DEA registered researchers. If its application for registration is granted, the registrant would not be authorized to conduct other activity under this registration aside from those coincident activities specifically authorized by DEA regulations. DEA will evaluate the application for registration as a bulk manufacturer for compliance with all applicable laws, treaties, and regulations and to ensure adequate safeguards against diversion are in place.
As this applicant has applied to become registered as a Bulk Manufacturer of Marihuana, the application will be evaluated under the criteria of 21 U.S.C. 823(a) as described in 84 FR 44920, published on August 27, 2019.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), DEA is providing notice that on October 31, 2019, STANLEY BROTHERS BIO TECH INC., 66 South Logan Street, Suite 209, Denver, Colorado 80209-1809 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class of controlled substances:
The applicant noticed above applied to become registered with DEA to grow marihuana as a bulk manufacturer subsequent to a 2016 DEA policy statement that provided information on how it intended to expand the number of registrations, and described in general terms the way it would oversee those additional growers. Before DEA completes the evaluation and registration process for applicants to grow marihuana, DEA intends to propose regulations in the near future that would supersede the 2016 policy statement and govern persons seeking to become registered with DEA to grow marihuana as bulk manufacturers, consistent with applicable law, as described in 84 FR 44920.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before February 24, 2020.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on October 25, 2019, Kinetochem LLC, 111 W Cooperative Way, Suite 310-B, Georgetown, Texas 78626 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to synthetically manufacture drug codes 7360 (marihuana) and 7370 (tetrahydrocannabinols), in bulk for distribution and sale to its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Notice of application.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is providing notice of an application it has received from an entity applying to be registered to manufacture in bulk basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I. Prior to making decisions on this and other pending applications, DEA intends to promulgate regulations that govern the program of growing marihuana for scientific and medical research under DEA registration.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before February 24, 2020.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference Docket No. DEA-559 in all correspondence, including attachments.
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) prohibits the cultivation and distribution of marihuana except by persons who are registered under the CSA to do so for lawful purposes. In accordance with the purposes specified in 21 CFR 1301.33(a), DEA is providing notice that the entity identified below has applied for registration as a bulk manufacturer of schedule I controlled substances. In response, registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections of the requested registration, as provided in this notice. This notice does not constitute any evaluation or determination of the merits of the application submitted.
The applicant plans to manufacture bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for product development and distribution to DEA registered researchers. If its application for registration is granted, the registrant would not be authorized to conduct other activity under this registration aside from those coincident activities specifically authorized by DEA regulations. DEA will evaluate the application for registration as a bulk manufacturer for compliance with all applicable laws, treaties, and regulations and to ensure adequate safeguards against diversion are in place.
As this applicant has applied to become registered as a Bulk Manufacturer of Marihuana, the application will be evaluated under the criteria of 21 U.S.C. 823(a) as described in 84 FR 44920, published on August 27, 2019.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), DEA is providing notice that on September 24, 2019, Royal Emerald Pharmaceuticals Research and Development, 7220 Trade Street, Suite 340, San Diego, California 92121-2324 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The applicant noticed above applied to become registered with DEA to grow marihuana as a bulk manufacturer subsequent to a 2016 DEA policy statement that provided information on how it intended to expand the number of registrations, and described in general terms the way it would oversee those additional growers. Before DEA completes the evaluation and registration process for applicants to grow marihuana, DEA intends to propose regulations in the near future that would supersede the 2016 policy statement and govern persons seeking to become registered with DEA to grow marihuana as bulk manufacturers, consistent with applicable law, as described in 84 FR 44920.
Notice of application.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is providing notice of an application it has received from an entity applying to be registered to manufacture in bulk basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I. Prior to making decisions on this and other pending applications, DEA intends to promulgate regulations that govern the program of growing marihuana for scientific and medical research under DEA registration.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefor, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before February 24, 2020.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) prohibits the cultivation and distribution of marihuana except by persons who are registered under the CSA to do so for lawful purposes. In accordance with the purposes specified in 21 CFR 1301.33(a), DEA is providing notice that the entity identified below has applied for registration as a bulk manufacturer of schedule I controlled substances. In response, registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefor, may file written comments on or objections of the requested registration, as provided in this notice. This notice does not constitute any evaluation or determination of the merits of the application submitted.
The applicant plans to manufacture bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for product development and distribution to DEA registered researchers. If its application for registration is granted, the registrant would not be authorized to conduct other activity under this registration aside from those coincident activities specifically authorized by DEA regulations. DEA will evaluate the application for registration as a bulk manufacturer for compliance with all applicable laws, treaties, and regulations and to ensure adequate safeguards against diversion are in place.
As this applicant has applied to become registered as a Bulk Manufacturer of Marihuana, the application will be evaluated under the criteria of 21 U.S.C. 823(a) as described in 84 FR 44920, published on August 27, 2019.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), DEA is providing notice that on November 1, 2019, Agronomed Pharmaceuticals, 740 Springdale Drive, Suite 130, Exton, Pennsylvania 19341-2876 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class of controlled substances:
The applicant noticed above applied to become registered with DEA to grow marihuana as bulk manufacturer subsequent to a 2016 DEA policy statement that provided information on how it intended to expand the number of registrations, and described in general terms the way it would oversee those additional growers. Before DEA completes the evaluation and registration process for applicants to grow marihuana, DEA intends to propose regulations in the near future that would supersede the 2016 policy statement and govern persons seeking to become registered with DEA to grow marihuana as bulk manufacturers, consistent with applicable law, as described in 84 FR 44920.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit 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. The proposed collection is being revised to include a Continuation Sheet, as well as changes to the content and layout of the form. There is also a decrease in the total respondents and burden hours associated with this information collection (IC). The proposed IC is also being published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until February 24, 2020.
If you have additional comments, regarding the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please contact: Helen Koppe, ATF Firearms & Explosives Industry Division either by mail at 99 New York Avenue NE, 6 N-652, Washington, DC 20226, by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, is submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until February 24, 2020.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Daniel Yi, Senior Counsel for Innovation, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20009.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
There is no agency form number for this collection. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Civil Rights Division.
4.
This form will be made available online to be used by individual complainants at their discretion and convenience. The use of the form is voluntary.
The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice enforces the nation's federal civil rights statutes. Members of the public play a critical role in this effort by reporting civil rights violations to the Division. To facilitate this reporting process, the Division is developing a streamlined online Reporting Portal for Civil Rights Violations. This Portal is designed to facilitate and enhance individual complainant's reporting opportunities, save members of the public time in reporting violations, and improve how the Division responds to those reports. The information the Division plans to collect using the reporting portal will help the Division fulfill its enforcement responsibilities under the statutes outlined above.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections.
Comments are due by February 24, 2020.
All comments should be addressed to Claire Little, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20546-0001 or call 202-358-2375.
Requests for additional information or
The Electronic Health Record System is used by the NASA Occupational Health Program to generate records of medical care, diagnosis, treatment, surveillance examinations (
NASA collects, archives, and secures information from individuals visiting the Occupational Health clinics requiring routine medical examination in compliance with the following regulations:
Electronically and optionally by paper.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President.
30-Day notice and request for comments; correction.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy published a document in the
In the
In the
Office of National Drug Control Policy.
30-Day Notice and request for comments; correction
The Office of National Drug Control Policy published a document in the
In the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of National Drug Control Policy or sent via electronic mail to
In the
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of National Drug Control Policy or sent via electronic mail
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “NRC Form 327, Special Nuclear Material and Source Material Physical Inventory Summary Reports, and NUREG/BR-0096, Instructions and Guidance for Completing Physical Inventory Summary Reports.”
Submit comments by January 27, 2020. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0139), Attn: Desk Officer for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 725 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20503; email:
David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0158 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:
•
•
•
•
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “NRC Form 327, Special Nuclear Material and
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comments.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) for Operating Power Reactors and Gaseous Diffusion Plants (NRC Enforcement Policy).”
Submit comments by February 24, 2020. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0218 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2019-0218 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
In these circumstances, a licensee or certificate holder may request that the NRC exercise enforcement discretion, and the NRC staff may choose to not enforce the applicable TS, TSR, or other license or certificate condition. This enforcement discretion is designated as a NOED.
A licensee or certificate holder seeking the issuance of a NOED must justify, in accordance with NRC Enforcement Manual (ADAMS Accession No. ML19193A023), the safety basis for the request, including an evaluation of the safety significance and potential consequences of the proposed request, a description of proposed compensatory measures, a justification for the duration of the request, the basis for the licensee's or certificate holder's conclusion that the request does not have a potential adverse impact on the public health and safety, and does not involve adverse consequences to the environment, and any other information the NRC staff deems necessary before making a decision to exercise discretion.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
Weeks of December 23, 30, 2019, January 6, 13, 20, 27, 2020.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 23, 2019.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 30, 2019.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 6, 2020.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 13, 2020.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 20, 2020.
This meeting will be webcast live at the web address—
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or by email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. 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)
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has issued an Order, pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Section 19(g)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Section 17(d)(1) of the Act
To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules: Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
On October 6, 2016, the Commission declared effective the Plan entered into between FINRA and the Bats Exchanges for allocating regulatory responsibility pursuant to Rule 17d-2.
On December 3, 2019, the parties submitted a proposed amendment to the Plan (“Amended Plan”). The primary purposes of the Amended Plan are to (1) allocate surveillance, investigation, and enforcement responsibilities for Rule 14e-4 under the Act and (2) amend the Plan to reflect the name changes of the Bats Exchanges. The text of the proposed Amended Plan is as follows (additions are
This Agreement, by and between the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), [Bats]
1. Definitions. Unless otherwise defined in this Agreement or the context otherwise requires, the terms used in this Agreement shall have the same meaning as they have under the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(a) “
(b) “
(c) “
(d) “
(e) “
(f) “
2. Regulatory Responsibilities. FINRA shall assume Regulatory Responsibilities for Common Members. Attached as
(a) Surveillance, examination, investigation and enforcement with respect to trading activities or practices involving each Bats Exchange's own marketplace for rules that are not Common Rules;
(b) registration pursuant to its applicable rules of associated persons (
(c) discharge of its duties and obligations as a Designated Examining Authority pursuant to Rule 17d-1 under the Exchange Act; and
(d) any Bats Exchanges Rules that are not Common Rules, except for any Bats Exchanges Rules for any broker-dealer subsidiary of [Bats Global Markets]
3. Common Members. Prior to the Effective Date, each Bats Exchange shall furnish FINRA with a current list of Common Members, which shall be updated no less frequently than once each quarter.
4. No Charge. There shall be no charge to the Bats Exchanges by FINRA for performing the Regulatory Responsibilities under this Agreement except as otherwise agreed by the parties, either herein or in a separate agreement.
5. Reassignment of Regulatory Responsibilities. Notwithstanding any provision hereof, this Agreement shall be subject to any statute, or any rule or order of the Commission, or industry agreement, restructuring the regulatory framework of the securities industry or reassigning Regulatory Responsibilities between self-regulatory organizations. To the extent such action is inconsistent with this Agreement, such action shall supersede the provisions hereof to the extent necessary for them to be properly effectuated and the provisions hereof in that respect shall be null and void.
6. Notification of Violations. In the event that FINRA becomes aware of apparent violations of any Bats Exchanges Rules, which are not listed as Common Rules, discovered pursuant to the performance of the Regulatory Responsibilities assumed hereunder, FINRA shall notify the Bats Exchanges of those apparent violations for such response as the Bats Exchanges deem appropriate. In the event that any of the Bats Exchanges becomes aware of apparent violations of any Common Rules, discovered pursuant to the performance of the Retained Responsibilities, the applicable Bats Exchange shall notify FINRA of those apparent violations and such matters shall be handled by FINRA as provided in this Agreement. With respect to apparent violations of any Bats Exchanges Rules by any broker-dealer subsidiary of Bats Global Markets, Inc., FINRA shall not make referrals to the Bats Exchanges pursuant to this paragraph 6. Such apparent violations shall be processed by, and enforcement proceedings in respect thereto will be conducted by, FINRA as provided in this Agreement. Each party agrees to make available promptly all files, records and witnesses necessary to assist the other in its investigation or proceedings. Apparent violations of Common Rules, FINRA Rules, federal securities laws, and rules and regulations thereunder, shall be processed by, and enforcement proceedings in respect thereto shall be conducted by FINRA as provided hereinbefore; provided, however, that in the event a Common Member is the subject of an investigation relating to a transaction on a Bats Exchange, the Bats Exchange may in its discretion assume concurrent jurisdiction and responsibility.
7. Continued Assistance.
(a) FINRA shall make available to the Bats Exchanges all information obtained by FINRA in the performance by it of the Regulatory Responsibilities hereunder with respect to the Common Members subject to this Agreement. In particular, and not in limitation of the foregoing, FINRA shall furnish the Bats Exchanges any information it obtains about Common Members which reflects adversely on their financial condition. The Bats Exchanges shall make available to FINRA any information coming to its attention that reflects adversely on the financial condition of Common Members or indicates possible violations of applicable laws, rules or regulations by such firms.
(b) The parties agree that documents or information shared shall be held in confidence, and used only for the purposes of carrying out their respective regulatory obligations. The parties shall not assert regulatory or other privileges as against another with respect to documents or information that is required to be shared pursuant to this Agreement.
(c) The sharing of documents or information between the parties pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver as against third parties of regulatory or other privileges relating to the discovery of documents or information.
8. Statutory Disqualifications. When FINRA becomes aware of a statutory disqualification as defined in the Exchange Act with respect to a Common Member, FINRA shall determine pursuant to Sections 15A(g) and/or Section 6(c) of the Exchange Act the acceptability or continued applicability of the person to whom such disqualification applies and keep the Bats Exchanges advised of its actions in this regard for such subsequent proceedings as the Bats Exchanges may initiate.
9. Customer Complaints. The Bats Exchanges shall forward to FINRA copies of all customer complaints involving Common Members received by the Bats Exchanges relating to FINRA's Regulatory Responsibilities under this Agreement. It shall be FINRA's responsibility to review and take appropriate action in respect to such complaints.
10. Advertising. FINRA shall assume responsibility to review the advertising of Common Members subject to the Agreement, provided that such material is filed with FINRA in accordance with FINRA's filing procedures and is accompanied with any applicable filing fees set forth in FINRA Rules.
11. No Restrictions on Regulatory Action. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall restrict or in any way encumber the right of any party to conduct its own independent or concurrent investigation, examination or enforcement proceeding of or against Common Members, as any party, in its sole discretion, shall deem appropriate or necessary.
12. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by the Bats Exchanges or FINRA at any time upon the approval of the Commission after one (1) year's written notice to the other party, except as provided in paragraph 4.
13. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective upon approval of the Commission.
14. Arbitration. In the event of a dispute among the parties as to the operation of this Agreement, the Bats Exchanges and FINRA hereby agree that
15. Notification of Members. The Bats Exchanges and FINRA shall notify Common Members of this Agreement after the Effective Date by means of a uniform joint notice.
16. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended in writing duly approved by each party. All such amendments must be filed with and approved by the Commission before they become effective.
17. Limitation of Liability. Neither FINRA nor any Bats Exchange nor any of their respective directors, governors, officers or employees shall be liable to the other parties to this Agreement for any liability, loss or damage resulting from or claimed to have resulted from any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions with respect to the provision of Regulatory Responsibilities as provided hereby or for the failure to provide any such responsibility, except with respect to such liability, loss or damages as shall have been suffered by one or the other of FINRA or any Bats Exchange and caused by the willful misconduct of the other party or their respective directors, governors, officers or employees. No warranties, express or implied, are made by FINRA or any Bats Exchange with respect to any of the responsibilities to be performed by each of them hereunder.
18. Relief from Responsibility. Pursuant to Sections 17(d)(1)(A) and 19(g) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17d-2 thereunder, FINRA and the Bats Exchanges join in requesting the Commission, upon its approval of this Agreement or any part thereof, to relieve the Bats Exchanges of any and all responsibilities with respect to matters allocated to FINRA pursuant to this Agreement; provided, however, that this Agreement shall not be effective until the Effective Date.
19. Severability. Any term or provision of this Agreement that is invalid or unenforceable in any jurisdiction shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or unenforceability without rendering invalid or unenforceable the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement or affecting the validity or enforceability of any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement in any other jurisdiction.
20. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
Each Bats Exchange hereby certifies that the requirements contained in the rules listed below are identical to, or substantially similar to, the comparable FINRA Rule, NASD Rule, Exchange Act provision or SEC Rule identified (“Common Rules”).
In addition, the following provisions shall be part of this 17d-2 Agreement:
Section 15(g)
[# FINRA shall not have Regulatory Responsibilities regarding notification or reporting to the Bats Exchanges and to the extent any exercise of discretion is the same.]
* FINRA shall not have any Regulatory Responsibilities for these rules as they pertain to violations of insider trading activities, which is covered by a separate 17d-2 Agreement by and among [BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange Inc., EDGX Exchange Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange, LLC, NYSE Amex LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc. effective December 16, 2011]
** FINRA shall not have Regulatory Responsibilities for these rules as they pertain to trading practices involving securities that do not meet the definition of NMS stock as defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS. As of the current date, Bats Exchanges do not trade any non-NMS stock.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds that the proposed Amended Plan is consistent with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act
The Commission notes that, under the Amended Plan, the Bats Exchanges and FINRA have allocated regulatory responsibility for those rules of the Bats Exchanges, set forth in the Certification, that are substantially similar to the applicable FINRA rules in that examination for compliance with such provisions and rules would not require FINRA to develop one or more new examination standards, modules, procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the application of the rule, or a Common Member's activity, conduct, or output in relation to such rule. In addition, under the Amended Plan, FINRA would assume regulatory responsibility for certain provisions of the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder that are set forth in the Certification. The Common Rules covered by the Amended Plan are specifically listed in the Certification, as may be amended by the Parties from time to time.
According to the Amended Plan, the Bats Exchanges will review the Certification, at least annually, or more frequently if required by changes in either the rules of any one of the Bats Exchanges or FINRA, and, if necessary, submit to FINRA an updated list of Common Rules to add rules of any Bats Exchange not included on the then-current list of Common Rules that are substantially similar to FINRA rules; delete rules of any Bats Exchange included in the then-current list of Common Rules that no longer qualify as common rules; and confirm that the remaining rules on the list of Common Rules continue to be rules of each Bats Exchange that qualify as common rules.
The Commission is hereby declaring effective an Amended Plan that, among other things, allocates regulatory responsibility to FINRA for the oversight and enforcement of all rules of the Bats Exchanges that are substantially similar to the rules of FINRA for Common Members of FINRA and the Bats Exchanges. Therefore, modifications to the Certification need not be filed with the Commission as an amendment to the Amended Plan, provided that the Parties are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming changes to the rules of the Bats Exchanges in the Certification in conformance with the definition of Common Rules provided in the Amended Plan. However, should the Parties decide to add a rule of a Bats Exchange to the Certification that is not substantially similar to a FINRA rule; delete a rule of a Bats Exchange from the Certification that is substantially similar to a FINRA rule; or leave on the Certification a Bats Exchange rule that is no longer substantially similar to a FINRA rule, then such a change would constitute an amendment to the Amended Plan, which must be filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
Under paragraph (c) of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may, after appropriate notice and comment, declare a plan, or any part of a plan, effective. In this instance, the Commission believes that appropriate notice and comment can take place after the proposed amendment is effective. The primary purposes of the amendment are to allocate surveillance, investigation, and enforcement responsibilities for Rule 14e-4 under the Act, and to update the names of the Bats Exchanges. By declaring it effective today, the Amended Plan can become effective and be implemented without undue delay. The Commission notes that the prior version of this plan immediately prior to this proposed amendment was published for comment and the Commission did not receive any comments thereon.
This Order gives effect to the Plan filed with the Commission in File No. 4-705. The Parties shall notify all members affected by the Plan of their rights and obligations under the Plan.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.60-O (Price Protection—Orders) to modify and enhance certain of its current price protection mechanisms. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (c) of Rule 6.60-O to modify and enhance its Price Reasonability Checks for options orders to sell puts or calls (the “Sell Check”). As proposed, the Exchange would enhance the Sell Checks applied when the National Best Bid (“NBB”) is below a specified price and would exclude from the Sell Check any Intermarket Sweep Orders, both of which changes would allow for a more finely calibrated Sell Check.
The Exchange has in place various price check mechanisms that are designed to prevent incoming orders from automatically executing at potentially erroneous prices.
Current Rule 6.60-O(c)(2) sets forth the current Sell Check, which is designed to protect sellers of calls and puts from presumptively erroneous executions based on the “Intrinsic Value” of an option. The Intrinsic Value of an option series is measured as the difference between the strike price and the consolidated last sale price. A sell order in a call series creates an obligation to
The Exchange proposes to modify the Sell Check to introduce a separate percentage threshold to better account for sell orders in options series that are trading at relatively low prices so as to avoid such orders potentially being (incorrectly) rejected or canceled.
As noted above, market participants may opt to willingly execute trading strategies regardless of whether the result is an execution for a price less than the Intrinsic Value of the options series. The Low Price Intrinsic Value percentage threshold is designed to allow greater flexibility to market participants submitting sell orders in option series trading at lower prices. This would allow participants additional opportunities to execute certain orders (rather than reject or cancel), while still maintaining a tolerance range. Thus, the proposal would protect investors by adding flexibility and sensitivity to the Sell Check for orders in lower-priced options and allow the balance of the Price Checks to continue to operate as intended.
The following examples illustrate this proposed functionality.
The Exchange also proposes to modify the Sell Check to exclude any Intermarket Sweep Order or ISO.
The Exchange will announce by Trader Update the implementation date of the proposed rule change.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed Sell Check as modified to account for lower-priced options and to exclude ISOs would protect investors and the public interest and maintain fair and orderly markets by ensuring that properly entered orders are not inadvertently rejected or canceled by the Exchange. In particular, the Low Price Intrinsic Value percentage threshold would allow for better calibration of the Sell Check (
In addition, with regard to ISOs, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to exclude such orders from the Sell Check to ensure that the order type (as well as the Sell Check) operates as intended. Moreover, modifying the rule to specify that ISOs would be excluded from the Sell Check would add clarity and transparency to Exchange rules.
The Exchange is proposing the modifications to the Sell Check for the benefit of, and in consultation with, OTP Holders and OTP Firms and believes the proposed rule change would help to maintain a fair and orderly market, and provide a valuable service to investors. In particular, the proposed changes to the Sell Check are responsive to member input regarding certain orders being erroneously rejected or canceled by the Sell Check (either an ISO or a sell order on an option series trading at a (relatively) low price). This proposal would thus facilitate transactions in securities and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by providing OTP Holders and OTP Firms with enhanced functionality that will assist them with managing their portfolio and risk profile.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change enhances the existing Sell Check for option orders of all OTP Holders submitted to the Exchange and is designed to ensure that properly entered orders are not inadvertently rejected or canceled by the Exchange—insofar as the Sell Check would exclude (and not interfere with the operation of) ISO orders, and, would apply a modified/more finely calibrated percentage threshold to sell orders in option series trading at a relatively low price.
The Exchange further believes that because the proposed rule change would be applicable to all OTP Holders it would not impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 967NY (Price Protection—Orders) to modify and enhance certain of its current price protection mechanisms. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (c) of Rule 967NY to modify and enhance its Price Reasonability Checks for options orders to sell puts or calls (the “Sell Check”). As proposed, the Exchange would enhance the Sell Checks applied when the National Best Bid (“NBB”) is below a specified price and would exclude from the Sell Check any Intermarket Sweep Orders, both of which changes would allow for a more finely calibrated Sell Check.
The Exchange has in place various price check mechanisms that are designed to prevent incoming orders from automatically executing at potentially erroneous prices.
Current Rule 967NY(c)(2) sets forth the current Sell Check, which is designed to protect sellers of calls and puts from presumptively erroneous executions based on the “Intrinsic Value” of an option. The Intrinsic Value of an option series is measured as the difference between the strike price and the consolidated last sale price. A sell order in a call series creates an obligation to
The Exchange proposes to modify the Sell Check to introduce a separate percentage threshold to better account for sell orders in options series that are trading at relatively low prices so as to avoid such orders potentially being (incorrectly) rejected or canceled. Specifically, the Exchange would apply this modified check to limit orders to sell when the NBB for the option series is equal to or below a specified minimum price, as determined and announced by the Exchange (the “Minimum Price”).
As noted above, market participants may opt to willingly execute trading strategies regardless of whether the result is an execution for a price less than the Intrinsic Value of the options series. The Low Price Intrinsic Value percentage threshold is designed to allow greater flexibility to market participants submitting sell orders in option series trading at lower prices. This would allow participants additional opportunities to execute certain orders (rather than reject or cancel), while still maintaining a tolerance range. Thus, the proposal would protect investors by adding flexibility and sensitivity to the Sell Check for orders in lower-priced options and allow the balance of the Price Checks to continue to operate as intended.
The following examples illustrate this proposed functionality.
• Minimum Price is $1.00.
• (Regular) Intrinsic Value percentage threshold is 25%.
• Low Price Intrinsic Value percentage threshold is 100%.
• Series A: XYZ DEC 136 Call.
• XYZ Stock is trading at $136.36.
• The NBB of $2.00 is above the Minimum Price (
• The Intrinsic Value of Series A is $0.36 ($136.36 − $136.00); and
• The lowest acceptable price for a sell in Series A is $0.27 (after applying the 25% percentage threshold ($0.09)).
• The NBB of $0.50 is below the Minimum Price (
• The Intrinsic Value of Series A is $0.36 ($136.36 − $136.00); and
• The lowest acceptable price for a sell in Series A is $0.00 (after applying the 100% percentage threshold ($0.36)) (
The Exchange also proposes to modify the Sell Check to exclude any Intermarket Sweep Order or ISO.
The Exchange will announce by Trader Update the implementation date of the proposed rule change.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed Sell Check as modified to account for lower-priced options and to exclude ISOs would protect investors and the public interest and maintain fair and orderly markets by ensuring that properly entered orders are not inadvertently rejected or canceled by the Exchange. In particular, the Low Price Intrinsic Value percentage threshold would allow for better calibration of the Sell Check (
In addition, with regard to ISOs, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to exclude such orders from the Sell Check to ensure that the order type (as well as the Sell Check) operates as intended. Moreover, modifying the rule to specify that ISOs would be excluded from the Sell Check would add clarity and transparency to Exchange rules.
The Exchange is proposing the modifications to the Sell Check for the benefit of, and in consultation with ATP Holders and believes the proposed rule change would help to maintain a fair and orderly market, and provide a valuable service to investors. In particular, the proposed changes to the Sell Check are responsive to member input regarding certain orders being erroneously rejected or canceled by the Sell Check (either an ISO or a sell order on an option series trading at a (relatively) low price). This proposal would thus facilitate transactions in securities and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by providing ATP Holders with enhanced functionality that will assist them with managing their portfolio and risk profile.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
The Exchange further believes that because the proposed rule change would be applicable to all ATP Holders it would not impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The
The Exchange proposes various amendments to its Fees Schedule.
Footnote 49 of the Fees Schedule currently provides that any appointed SPX Select Market-Maker (“SMM”) will receive a monthly rebate of $8,000 if the SMM provides continuous electronic quotes in at least 99% of the SPX series 90% of the time in a given month. SMMs are not obligated to satisfy the heightened quoting standards described in the Fees Schedule. Rather, SMMs are eligible to receive a rebate if they satisfy the heightened standards. SMMs must still comply with the continuous quoting obligation and other obligations of Market-Makers described in Cboe Options Rules.
The Exchange currently assesses certain fees in connection with orders routed to other exchanges. The Exchange proposes to not pass through or otherwise charge customer (capacity code “C”) orders (of any size) routed to other exchanges that were originally transmitted to the Exchange from the trading floor through an Exchange-sponsored terminal (
The Exchange currently assesses a SPX Tier Appointment Fee of $3,000 per month to any Market-Maker holding a Market-Maker Electronic Access Permit (“EAP”) (“MM EAP”) that trades any SPX (including SPXW) contracts at any time during the month. The Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule to adopt a contract threshold. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to provide that the SPX Tier Appointment Fee will be assessed to any MM EAP that executes at least 1,000 contracts in SPX (including SPXW) excluding contracts executed during the opening rotation on the final settlement date of VIX options and futures with the expiration used in the VIX settlement calculation. The Exchange proposes to exclude SPX and SPXW volume executed during opening rotation on the final settlement date of VIX options and futures which have the expiration that contribute to the VIX settlement, as such orders help to facilitate the calculation of a settlement price for VIX options and futures and the Exchange does not wish to discourage the sending of such orders.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes eliminating the SPX SMM Program is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is not required to maintain such a rebate program and no longer desires to do so. The Exchange believes that there is sufficient liquidity in SPX and does not believe a rebate program is necessary to further incentivize liquidity. The Exchange believes the proposed change is not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply equally to all SMMs.
The Exchange believes it's reasonable to waive linkage fees for customer
Finally, as noted above, the proposed waiver is not novel. Indeed, the Exchange maintained the proposed waiver prior to the migration to a new billing system on October 7, 2019, but had eliminated the waiver upon migration.
The Exchange believes the proposed change to adopt a contract threshold to trigger the electronic SPX Tier Appointment Surcharge is reasonable as MM EAPs that trade below such threshold will not be subject to the MM EAP SPX Tier Appointment Fee. The Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable as the SPX Tier Appointment surcharge was intended to apply to TPHs who act as Market-Makers in SPX, not those that do not regularly trade SPX electronically. Additionally, while liquidity is important to open all series on the Exchange, given the potential impact on the exercise settlement value determined for expiring volatility index derivatives, it is very important to encourage a fair and orderly opening of the series that are used to calculate the final settlement value of expiring VIX derivatives. Accordingly, the Exchange does not wish to assess the SPX Tier Appointment fee to MM EAPs who do not conduct significant electronic volume in SPX (or SPXW) other than volume executed during opening rotation on the final settlement date of VIX options and futures which have the expiration that are used in the VIX settlement calculation and subsequent volume executed to close out of such positions. The Exchange believes it's equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to adopt a threshold for off-floor Markets-Markets and not on-floor Market-Makers as only electronic SPX and SPXW orders participate in the opening rotation on the final settlement date of VIX options and futures. As open-outcry volume does not facilitate the calculation of the settlement price for VIX options and futures, the Exchange does not believe it's necessary to adopt a corresponding exception to the SPX Tier Appointment for on-floor Market-Makers. The Exchange notes that any TPH that electronically executes more than 1 contract but less than 1,000 contracts in SPX (including SPXW), excluding volume executed during opening rotation on the final settlement date of VIX options and futures which have the expiration that are used in the VIX settlement calculation will no longer have to pay the Tier Appointment Fee. As noted above, the Exchange is not proposing to change the amount assessed for the electronic SPX Tier Appointment Fee. The proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply uniformly to all TPHs. The Exchange lastly notes that a similar 1,000 contract threshold also applies to MM EAP Tier Appointment Fees in RUT and VIX.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impose any burden on intramarket competitions that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed changes will be applied equally to all similarly situated market participants. For example, although the proposed routing exception only applies to Customers, as discussed, above, the Exchange believes limiting the exception to customer orders is not unfairly discriminatory because non-customer (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change regarding the SMM Program or the SPX Tier Appointment Fee will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed waiver applies to a product traded exclusively on the Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change relating to linkage does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and director their order flow, including 15 other options exchanges and off-exchange venues. The Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 24% of the market share.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”),
Section 109 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act provides that the PCAOB shall establish a reasonable annual accounting support fee, as may be necessary or appropriate to establish and maintain the PCAOB. Under Section 109(f) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the aggregate annual accounting support fee shall not exceed the PCAOB's aggregate “recoverable budget expenses,” which may include operating, capital, and accrued items. The PCAOB's annual budget and accounting support fee are subject to approval by the Commission. In addition, the PCAOB must allocate the
Section 109(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act directs the PCAOB to establish a budget for each fiscal year in accordance with the PCAOB's internal procedures, subject to approval by the Commission. Rule 190 of Regulation P governs the Commission's review and approval of PCAOB budgets and annual accounting support fees.
In accordance with the budget rule, in March 2019 the PCAOB provided the Commission with a narrative description of its program issues and outlook for the 2020 budget year. In response, the Commission provided the PCAOB with economic assumptions and general budgetary guidance for the 2020 budget year. The PCAOB subsequently delivered a preliminary budget and budget justification to the Commission. Staff from the Commission's Office of the Chief Accountant and Office of Financial Management dedicated a substantial amount of time to the review and analysis of the PCAOB's programs, projects, and budget estimates and attended several meetings with staff of the PCAOB to further develop the understanding of the PCAOB's budget and operations. During the course of this review, Commission staff relied upon representations and supporting documentation from the PCAOB. Based on this review, the Commission issued a “passback” letter to the PCAOB on October 31, 2019. On November 19, 2019, the PCAOB adopted its 2020 budget and accounting support fee during an open meeting, and subsequently submitted that budget to the Commission for approval.
After considering the above, the Commission did not identify any proposed disbursements in the 2020 budget adopted by the PCAOB that are not properly recoverable through the annual accounting support fee, and the Commission believes that the aggregate proposed 2020 annual accounting support fee does not exceed the PCAOB's aggregate recoverable budget expenses for 2020.
The Commission directs the PCAOB during 2020 to schedule monthly meetings, as needed, with the Commission's staff about the transformation initiatives that are expected to have a significant impact on the 2021 PCAOB budget, including significant differences between actual and budgeted amounts, and anticipated cost savings. Separately, the Commission directs the PCAOB to continue its written quarterly updates on recent activities, including transformation initiatives, for the PCAOB's Office of Economic and Risk Analysis, Office of Information Technology, and Division of Registration and Inspections. The PCAOB Board will make itself available to meet with the Commissioners on these and other topics. The PCAOB should also submit its 2019 annual report to the Commission by March 30, 2020.
The Commission understands that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that the 2020 budget of the PCAOB is subject to sequestration under the Budget Control Act of 2011.
The Commission has determined that the PCAOB's 2020 budget and annual accounting support fee are consistent with Section 109 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Accordingly,
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to establish fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt the NYSE National Proprietary Market Data Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) and establish the fees for the NYSE National
The Exchange currently does not charge any fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed market data product.
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues, and also recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading services in NMS stocks has become “more fragmented and competitive.”
The recent growth of NYSE National's market share demonstrates this competitive marketplace. Between February 2017 and mid-May 2018, NYSE National was non-operational, and therefore had 0% of market share. On May 21, 2018, NYSE National re-launched on its current platform as an affiliated exchange of New York Stock Exchange, LLC (“NYSE”), NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca, Inc.”), and NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”). Within four months, NYSE National began regularly executing 1% of consolidated trading volume. By August 2019, NYSE National began executing approximately 1.5% of consolidated trading volume on a more regular basis. By October 2019, the Exchange had 1.9% market share of executed volume of equity trades.
As NYSE National's transaction market share has increased, so has the value of its market data. For example, in May 2018, when NYSE National re-launched trading operations, the Exchange had 12 customers for its NYSE National Integrated Feed. As NYSE National's market share has increased, the number of subscribers of the NYSE National Integrated Feed has steadily increased and as of October 2019, the Exchange has 56 customers that subscribe to the NYSE National Integrated Feed. In October 2019, customers of the NYSE National Integrated Feed account for over 99% of the executed trade volume on the Exchange.
To reflect the value of NYSE National's market data, as correlated to the Exchange's increased transaction volume market share, the Exchange proposes to establish the fees listed below for the NYSE National Integrated Feed, operative on February 3, 2020. The Exchange proposes to charge fees for the same categories of market data use as its affiliated exchanges (namely, NYSE, NYSE Arca, and NYSE American) currently charge. The Exchange believes that adopting the same fee structure as its affiliated exchanges would reduce administrative burdens on NYSE National market data subscribers that also currently subscribe to market data feeds from NYSE, NYSE Arca, or NYSE American.
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Exchange proposes three categories of Non-Display Use of the NYSE National Integrated Feed and related fees applicable to each category. One, two, or three categories of Non-Display Use may apply to a data recipient.
• As proposed, the Category 1 Fee would be $5,000 per month and would apply when a data recipient's Non-Display Use of the NYSE National Integrated Feed is on its own behalf, not on behalf of its clients.
• As proposed, Category 2 Fees would be $5,000 per month and would apply to a data recipient's Non-Display Use of the NYSE National Integrated Feed on behalf of its clients.
• As proposed, Category 3 Fees would be $5,000 per month and would apply to a data recipient's Non-Display Use of the NYSE National Integrated Feed for the purpose of internally matching buy and sell orders within an organization, including matching customer orders for a data recipient's own behalf and/or on behalf of its clients. This category would apply to Non-Display Use in trading platforms, such as, but not restricted to, alternative trading systems (“ATSs”), broker crossing networks, broker crossing systems not filed as ATSs, dark pools, multilateral trading facilities, exchanges and systematic internalization systems. A data recipient will be charged $5,000 per month for each platform on which it uses the Non-Display data internally to match buy and sell orders, up to a cap of $15,000 per month; even if the data recipient uses the NYSE National Integrated Feed for more than three platforms, it will not pay more than $15,000 for such Category 3 use per month.
The Exchange proposes to adopt the description of the three non-display use categories in the Fee Schedule in proposed endnote 1 on the Fee Schedule.
Data recipients that receive the NYSE National Integrated Feed for Non-Display Use would be required to complete and submit a Non-Display Use Declaration before they would be authorized to receive the feed. A firm subject to Category 3 Fees would be required to identify each platform that uses the NYSE National Integrated Feed for a Category 3 Non-Display Use basis, such as ATSs and broker crossing systems not registered as ATSs, as part of the Non-Display Use Declaration.
5.
In addition, if a data recipient's use of the NYSE National Integrated Feed data changes at any time after the data recipient submits a Non-Display Use Declaration, the data recipient must inform the Exchange of the change by completing and submitting at the time of the change an updated declaration reflecting the change of use.
6.
7.
8.
The Exchange believes that providing a one-month free trial to NYSE National market data products listed on the Fee Schedule would enable potential subscribers to determine whether a particular NYSE National market data product provides value to their business models before fully committing to expend development and implementation costs related to the receipt of that product, and is intended to encourage increased use of the Exchange's market data products by defraying some of the development and implementation costs subscribers would ordinarily have to expend before using a product.
The Exchange is not required to make the NYSE National Integrated Feed available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers, nor is any firm required to purchase the NYSE National Integrated Feed. Firms that choose to purchase the NYSE National Integrated Feed do so for the primary goals of using it to increase their revenues, reduce their expenses, and in some instances to compete directly with the Exchange (including for order flow). Those firms are able to determine for themselves whether or not the NYSE National Integrated Feed or any other similar products are attractively priced.
The Exchange produces and disseminates the NYSE National Integrated Feed as part of its market data offerings to support its transaction execution services. Since May 2018, when NYSE National relaunched trading, the Exchange has observed a direct correlation between the steady increase of subscribers to the NYSE National Integrated Feed and the increase in the Exchange's transaction market share volume over the same period.
Based on the reported usage of the NYSE National Integrated Feed, the Exchange believes that its data subscribers use the order-by-order detail information available in this market data product to make trading decisions that directly benefit the transaction services that the Exchange offers. Specifically, subscribers of the NYSE National Integrated Feed represent firms that provide over 99% of the Exchange's executed transaction volume. More than half of the feed's subscribers overall (
The 56 current subscribers to the NYSE National Integrated Feed would be impacted by this proposed rule change. The scope of the fee impact for each data recipient would depend on that data recipient's use of the data. Based on current usage, at least 33 firms would be subject to Category 1 Non-Display Use fees, at least 14 firms would be subject to Category 2 Non-Display Use fees, and at least 10 firms would be subject to Category 3 Non-Display Use fees. Because the product has not been previously been subject to fees, the Exchange does not know the full impact of the proposed fees on current data recipients because subscribers may choose to reduce or eliminate their use of data.
The Exchange determined the level of the fees to charge for the NYSE National Integrated Feed based on the value of the Exchange's transaction services. As noted above, over an 18-month period, NYSE National has grown from 0% to nearly 2% market share of consolidated trading volume. During that same period, the Exchange has had a steady increase in the number of subscribers to the NYSE National Integrated feed.
The proposed fee structure is not novel as it is based on the fee structure currently in place for the NYSE American Integrated Feed.
The Exchange anticipates that there may be current data recipients of the NYSE National Integrated Feed that have subscribed only because it is free and may choose to discontinue using the product once the fees are implemented. A data recipient that chooses to discontinue the NYSE National Integrated Feed may also choose to shift order flow away from the Exchange. In today's competitive environment, if data recipients were to both discontinue the product and shift order flow away from the Exchange, the Exchange would reevaluate the fees and potentially file a separate proposed rule change to amend its fees. However, in advance of implementing the proposed fees, the Exchange cannot estimate with precision the impact of the proposed fees on the Exchange's transaction services business or the number of NYSE National Integrated Feed subscribers.
Although the Exchange is proposing to make this proposed rule change operative on February 3, 2020, it is making this filing now because the Exchange believes it is appropriate to provide market participants with early notice of these proposed changes, so that they can begin determining whether the value of the NYSE National Integrated Feed to their businesses is such that they will choose to continue using the product once it is no longer provided for free. The Exchange believes that market participants should be able to begin such determinations before the Exchange begins charging fees (which is also consistent with the free trial period proposed in this filing).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted SROs and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues, and also recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
With respect to market data, the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress intended that the market system “evolve through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are removed” and that the SEC wield its regulatory power “in those situations where competition may not be sufficient,” such as in the creation of a “consolidated transactional reporting system.”
The court agreed with the Commission's conclusion that “Congress intended that `competitive forces should dictate the services and practices that constitute the U.S. national market system for trading equity securities.' ”
In this competitive marketplace, the Exchange's executed trading volume has grown from 0% market share to nearly 2% market share in less than two years and the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to begin charging fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed.
In 2018, Charles M. Jones, the Robert W. Lear Professor of Finance and Economics of the Columbia University School of Business, conducted an analysis of the market for equity market data in the United States. He canvassed the demand for both consolidated and exchange proprietary market data products and the uses to which those products were put by market participants, and reported his conclusions in a paper annexed hereto.
• “The market [for exchange market data] is characterized by robust competition: exchanges compete with each other in selling proprietary market data products. They also compete with consolidated data feeds and with data provided by alternative trading systems (‘ATSs'). Barriers to entry are very low, so existing exchanges must also take into account competition from new entrants, who generally try to build market share [as NYSE National has done with its Integrated Feed] by offering their proprietary market data products for free for some period of time.”
• “Although there are regulatory requirements for some market participants to use consolidated data products, there is no requirement for market participants to purchase any proprietary market data product for regulatory purposes.”
• “There are a variety of data products, and consumers of equity market data choose among them based on their needs. Like most producers, exchanges offer a variety of market data products at different price levels. Advanced proprietary market data products provide greater value to those who subscribe. As in any other market, each potential subscriber takes the features and prices of available products into account in choosing what market data products to buy based on its business model.”
• “Exchange equity market data fees are a small cost for the industry overall: the data demonstrates that total exchange market data revenues are orders of magnitude smaller than (i) broker-dealer commissions, (ii) investment bank earnings from equity trading, and (iii) revenues earned by third-party vendors.”
• “For proprietary exchange data feeds, the main question is whether there is a competitive market for proprietary market data. More than 40 active exchanges and alternative trading systems compete vigorously in both the market for order flow and in the market for market data. The two are closely linked: an exchange needs to consider the negative impact on its order flow if it raises the price of its market data.
Professor Jones' conclusions are consistent with the demonstration of the competitive constraints on the pricing of market data demonstrated by analysis of exchanges as platforms for market data and trading services, as shown below.
An exchange may demonstrate that its fees are constrained by competitive forces by showing that the platform theory of competition applies.
As the United States Supreme Court recognized in
To ensure sufficient participation, two-sided platforms must be sensitive to the prices that they charge each side. . . . Raising the price on side A risks losing participation on that side, which decreases the value of the platform to side B. If the participants on side B leave due to this loss in value, then the platform has even less value to side A—risking a feedback loop of declining demand. . . . Two-sided platforms therefore must take these indirect network effects into account before making a change in price on either side.
The Exchange and its affiliated exchanges have long maintained that they function as platforms between consumers of market data and consumers of trading services. Proving the existence of linkages between the two sides of this platform requires an in-depth economic analysis of both public data and confidential exchange data about particular customers' trading activities and market data purchases. Exchanges, however, are prohibited from publicly sharing details about these specific customer activities and purchases. For example, pursuant to Exchange Rule 7.41, transactions executed on the Exchange are processed anonymously.
The Exchange and its affiliated exchanges have retained a third-party expert, Marc Rysman, Professor of Economics at Boston University, to analyze how platform economics applies to stock exchanges' sale of market data products and trading services, and to explain how this affects the assessment of competitive forces affecting the exchanges' data fees.
Professor Rysman's analysis of this confidential firm-level data shows that firms that purchased the NYSE Integrated Feed market data product after its introduction were more likely to route orders to NYSE as opposed to one of the other NYSE-affiliated exchanges, such as NYSE Arca or NYSE American.
From this empirical evidence, Professor Rysman concludes:
• “[D]ata is more valuable when it reflects more trading activity and more liquidity-providing orders. These linkages alone are enough to make platform economics necessary for understanding the pricing of market data.”
• “[L]inkages running in the opposite direction, from data to trading, are also very likely to exist. This is because market data from an exchange reduces uncertainty about the likelihood, price, or timing of execution for an order on that exchange. This reduction in uncertainty makes trading on that exchange more attractive for traders that subscribe to that exchange's market data. Increased trading by data subscribers, in turn, makes trading on the exchange in question more attractive for traders that do not subscribe to the exchange's market data.”
• The “mechanisms by which market data makes trading on an exchange more attractive for subscribers to market data . . . apply to a wide assortment of market data products, including BBO, order book, and full order-by-order depth of book data products at all exchanges.”
• “[E]mpirical evidence confirms that stock exchanges are platforms for data and trading.”
• “The platform nature of stock exchanges means that data fees cannot be analyzed in isolation, without accounting for the competitive dynamics in trading services.”
• “Competition is properly understood as being between platforms (
• “Data fees, data use, trading fees, and order flow are all interrelated.”
• “Competition for order flow can discipline the pricing of market data, and vice-versa.”
• “As with platforms generally, overall competition between exchanges will limit their overall profitability, not margins on any particular side of the platform.”
The Exchange has observed a similar correlation in connection with its
Professor Rysman's conclusions that exchanges function as platforms for market data and transaction services mean that exchanges do not set fees for market data products without considering, and being constrained by, the effect the fees will have on the order-flow side of the platform. As the D.C. Circuit recognized in
Similarly, the Commission itself has recognized that the market for trading services in NMS stocks has become “more fragmented and competitive.”
Further, low barriers to entry mean that new exchanges may rapidly and inexpensively enter the market and offer additional substitute platforms to compete with the Exchange.
Given Professor Rysman's conclusion that exchanges are platforms for market data and trading, this fierce competition for order flow on the trading side of the platform acts to constrain, or “discipline,” the pricing of market data on the other side of the platform.
In sum, the fierce competition for order flow thus constrains any exchange from pricing its market data at a supracompetitive price, and constrains the Exchange here in setting its fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed.
The proposed fees are therefore reasonable because in setting them, the Exchange is constrained by the availability of numerous substitute platforms offering market data products and trading. Such substitutes need not be identical, but only substantially similar to the product at hand.
More specifically, in setting fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed, the Exchange is constrained by the fact that, if its pricing across the platform is unattractive to customers, customers have their pick of an increasing number of alternative platforms to use instead of the Exchange. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant factors in order to establish reasonable fees. The existence of numerous alternative platforms to the Exchange's platform ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable market data fees without suffering the negative effects of that decision in the fiercely competitive market in which it operates as a platform.
Subscribing to the NYSE National Integrated Feed is entirely optional. The Exchange is not required to make the NYSE National Integrated Feed available to any customers, nor is any customer required to purchase the NYSE National Integrated Feed. Unlike some other data products (
But even if such firms determine that the fees for NYSE National Integrated Feed are too high, customers can access much of the same data on the NYSE National Integrated Feed for free by subscribing to the NYSE National BBO feed (which includes best-bid-and-offer information for NYSE National on a real-time basis) and NYSE National Trades (which includes last-sale information on a real-time basis), both of which are offered at no cost. NYSE National top-of-book quotation information and last-sale information is also available on the consolidated SIP feeds. In this way, the NYSE National BBO, NYSE National Trades, and SIP data products are all substitutes for a significant portion of the data available on the NYSE National Integrated Feed. The availability of these substitute products constrains the Exchange's ability to charge supracompetitive prices for the NYSE National Integrated Feed.
The only content available on NYSE National Integrated Feed that is not available on these other products is the order-by-order look at the NYSE National book, which provides information about depth of book on the Exchange. The Exchange has been a vocal advocate for the creation of a “SIP Premium” product that would include depth-of-book information on the consolidated market data feeds.
Further, in the case of products that are also redistributed through market data vendors such as Bloomberg and Refinitiv, the vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for proprietary data products because they control the primary means of access to certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline based upon their business models. For example, vendors that assess a surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary products that their end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Currently, only one vendor redistributes the NYSE National Integrated Feed. Even in the absence of fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed, vendors have not elected to make available the NYSE National Integrated Feed and likely will not unless their customers request it, and customers will not elect to pay the proposed fees unless the NYSE National Integrated Feed can provide value by sufficiently increasing revenues or reducing costs in the customer's business in a manner that will offset the fees. All of these factors operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data products.
In setting the proposed fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant factors in order to establish reasonable fees. The existence of alternatives to the Exchange's platform and the continued availability of the Exchange's separate data feeds for free ensure that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees when vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if the attendant fees are not justified by the returns that any particular vendor or data recipient would achieve through the purchase.
The specific fees that the Exchange proposes for the NYSE National Integrated Feed are reasonable for the following additional reasons.
The Exchange believes the proposed fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed are also reasonable when compared to fees for comparable products, such as the NYSE American Integrated Feed.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Non-Display Use fees reflect the significant value of the non-display data use to data recipients, which purchase such data on an entirely voluntary basis. Non-display data can be used by data recipients for a wide variety of profit-generating purposes, including proprietary and agency trading and smart order routing, as well as by data recipients that operate order matching and execution platforms that compete directly with the Exchange for order flow. The data also can be used for a variety of non-trading purposes that indirectly support trading, such as risk management and compliance. Although some of these non-trading uses do not directly generate revenues, they can nonetheless substantially reduce a recipient's costs by automating such functions so that they can be carried out in a more efficient and accurate manner and reduce errors and labor costs, thereby benefiting recipients. The Exchange believes that charging for non-trading uses is reasonable because data recipients can derive substantial value from such uses, for example, by automating tasks so that can be performed more quickly and accurately and less expensively than if they were performed manually.
Previously, the non-display use data pricing policies of many exchanges required customers to count, and the exchanges to audit the count of, the number of non-display devices used by a customer. As non-display use grew more prevalent and varied, however, exchanges received an increasing number of complaints about the impracticality and administrative burden associated with that approach. In response, the Exchange and its affiliated exchanges developed a non-display use pricing structure that does not require non-display devices to be counted or those counts to be audited, and instead looks merely at the three following categories of potential use of non-display data: Use of the data on the customer's own behalf (Category 1), use on behalf of clients (Category 2), and use to internally match buy and sell orders within an organization (Category 3).
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to segment the fee for non-display use into these three categories. As noted above, the uses to which customers can put the NYSE National Integrated Feed are numerous and varied, and the Exchange believes that charging separate fees for these separate categories of use is reasonable because it reflects the actual value the customer derives from the data, based upon how many categories of use the customer makes of the data. Segmenting the fees for non-display data in this way avoids the unreasonable result of customers that make only limited non-display use of the data paying the same fees as customers that use the data for numerous different revenue-generating and cost-saving purposes.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees of $5,000 per month for each of Categories 1, 2, and 3 is reasonable. These fees are comparable to the NYSE American Integrated Feed fees for non-display use for the different categories of use, which is also $5,000 per category.
The Exchange also believes that, regarding Category 3 fees, it is reasonable to charge $5,000 per month for each trading platform on which the data recipient uses the Non-Display data, because such use of the data is directly in competition with the Exchange and the Exchange should be permitted to recoup some of its lost trading revenue by charging for the data that makes such competition possible. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to cap such fees for Category 3 use at $15,000 per month per data recipient, because a higher monthly fee may potentially dissuade competitors from buying the NYSE National Integrated Feed for use by their trading platforms.
The proposed Non-Display Use fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed are also reasonable because they take into account the extra value of receiving the data for Non-Display Use on an integrated basis. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees directly and appropriately reflect the significant value of using the NYSE National Integrated Feed on a non-display basis in a wide range of computer-automated functions relating to both trading and non-trading activities and that the number and range of these functions continue to grow through innovation and technology developments.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to impose a late fee in connection with the submission of the Non-Display Use Declaration. In order to correctly assess fees for the non-
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees for the NYSE National Integrated Fee are reasonable.
The Exchange believes the proposed fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed are allocated fairly and equitable among the various categories of users of the feed, and any differences among categories of users are justified.
The Exchange also believes that, regarding Category 3 fees, it is equitable to charge $5,000 per month for each
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees for the NYSE National Integrated Fee are equitably allocated.
The Exchange believes the proposed fees for the NYSE National Integrated Feed are not unfairly discriminatory because any differences in the application of the fees are based on meaningful distinctions between customers, and those meaningful distinctions are not unfairly discriminatory between customers.
The Exchange also believes that, regarding Category 3 fees, it is not unreasonably discriminatory to charge $5,000 per month for each trading platform on which the data recipient uses the Non-Display data, because such use of the data is directly in competition with the Exchange and the Exchange should be permitted to recoup some of its lost trading revenue by charging for the data that makes such competition possible. The Exchange believes that it is not unreasonably discriminatory to cap such fees for Category 3 use at $15,000 per month per data recipient, because a higher monthly fee may potentially dissuade competitors from buying the NYSE National Integrated Feed for use by their trading platforms.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees for the NYSE National Integrated Fee are not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed fees will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees neither favor nor penalize one or more categories of market participants in a manner that would impose an undue market on competition. As shown above, to the extent that particular proposed fees apply to only a subset of subscribers (
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not impose a burden on competition or on other exchanges that is not necessary or appropriate because of the availability of numerous substitute market data products. Many other exchanges offer proprietary data feeds like the NYSE National Integrated Feed, supplying depth of book order data, last sale data, security status updates, stock summary messages, and the exchange's best bid and offer at any given time, on a real-time basis. Because market data users can find suitable substitute feeds, an exchange that overprices its market data products stands a high risk that users may substitute another platform, in which case the platform would stand to lose both market data and trading fees. These competitive pressures ensure that no one exchange's market data fees can impose an unnecessary burden on competition, and the Exchange's proposed fees do not do so here.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set
The Exchange proposes to amend the list of MIAX Select Symbols
The Exchange initially created the list of MIAX Select Symbols on March 1, 2014,
Accordingly, the Exchange is amending its Fee Schedule to delete the symbol CBS from the list of MIAX Select Symbols contained in the Program. This amendment is intended to eliminate any potential confusion and to make it clear to market participants that CBS will not be a MIAX Select Symbol contained in the Program.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
In particular, the proposal to delete the symbol CBS from the list of MIAX Select Symbols contained in the Program is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act because the proposed changes will allow for continued benefit to investors by providing them an updated list of MIAX Select Symbols contained in the Program on the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to amend an option class that qualifies for the credit for transactions in MIAX Select Symbols is fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The Exchange believes that the Program itself is reasonably designed because it incentivizes providers of Priority Customer
The Exchange also believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it will apply equally to all Priority Customer orders in MIAX Select Symbols in the Program. All similarly situated Priority Customer orders in MIAX Select Symbols are subject to the same rebate schedule, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not a competitive filing but rather is designed to update the list of MIAX Select Symbols contained in the Program in order to avoid potential confusion on the part of market participants.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) relating to the MM FAANG Credit. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective December 9, 2019. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to modify an incentive program (described below), which is designed to encourage Market Makers to provide more competitive prices and deeper liquidity in options on the NYSE FANG+ Index (“NYSE FANG+”), which trades under the symbol FAANG. FAANG is an acronym for the market's five most popular and best-performing tech stocks, namely Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Alphabet's Google.
Currently, the Exchange offers a $5,000 credit to Market Maker organizations—specifically, NYSE Arca Options Market Makers or Lead Market Makers—that execute at least 500 total monthly contract sides that open a position in FAANG on the Exchange (the “MM FAANG Credit” or “Credit”). The Credit, which is applied against all Exchange fees charged to a Market Maker, is currently capped at $50,000, so if more than ten Market Maker organizations qualify for a MM FAANG Credit in a calendar month, the MM FAANG Credit for each qualifying firm will be a pro rata share of $50,000.
The Exchange proposes to continue to provide $50,000 in Credits to encourage Market Maker organizations to provide liquidity in FAANG, but provide for two different qualifying levels with different monthly credits. As proposed, the Exchange proposes to add an alternative, higher monthly credit of $10,000 for Market Maker Organizations that execute at least 2,000 total monthly contract sides that open a position in FAANG on the Exchange. This credit would be capped at $25,000. Accordingly, if more than two firms qualify, they must share $25,000 pro rata. The Exchange also proposes to reduce the total credits available for firms that qualify for the current Credit from $50,000 to $25,000, and similarly reduce the fewest number of qualifying firms that would be entitled to the full Credit from eleven to six. The Exchange believes that the proposed change would incent firms that have historically qualified for the Credit to
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective December 9, 2019.
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.
With respect to FAANG, this index is listed and traded only on the Exchange and NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”). However, this index product competes with market participants that choose to create their own synthetic index product by trading in the basket of securities that comprise the FAANG index. This proposed fee change is designed to increase liquidity for market participants that would like to trade FAANG by encouraging Market Maker organizations to open more positions in FAANG on the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to modify the existing Credit and add an alternative that offers a higher credit for firms that execute a higher number of total monthly contract sides that open a position in FAANG on the Exchange, as set forth in more detail below. With this proposed change, the total amount available under the Credit would not be changing. Rather, the Exchange would make available a higher per-firm credit for firms that provide more liquidity in FAANG. The Exchange believes the proposed modifications would further the Exchange's goal of encouraging Market Makers to make a market in these (relatively) new products, which would in turn, benefit market participants that are interested in trading FAANG.
To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to modify the Credit to reduce the cap on the credits available for the existing qualification from $50,000 to $25,000. With this change, if more than five (as opposed to more than ten) firms execute at least 500 total monthly FAANG contract sides in a calendar month, the Credit for each qualifying firm would be a pro rata share of $25,000 (down from $50,000).
The Exchange also proposes to add an alternative Credit to the same Market Maker organizations described above. As proposed, any such firm that executes at least 2,000 total monthly contract sides that open a position in FAANG on the Exchange would qualify for a credit of $10,000; provided, however, that if more than two firms qualify for the proposed (higher) FAANG Credit in a calendar month, the MM FAANG Credit for each qualifying firm would be a pro rata share of $25,000.
The Exchange believes the proposed modified MM FAANG Credit would further the Exchange's goal of encouraging trading in this (relatively) new index product, in particular by encouraging Market Makers to provide increased liquidity in tighter markets, which would in turn, benefit all market participants through more opportunities to trade.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain options exchange transaction fees. Stated otherwise, changes to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow.
While FAANG lists and trades only on the Exchange and NYSE American, this index product competes with market participants that choose to create their own synthetic index product by trading in the basket of securities that comprise the FAANG index. This proposed fee change is designed to increase liquidity for market participants that would like to trade FAANG by encouraging Market Maker organizations to open more positions in FAANG on the Exchange.
More specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed modification to the MM FAANG Credit is designed to generate additional order flow to the Exchange by creating incentives to transact in FAANG, which increased liquidity would benefit all market participants, including non-Market Makers that are interested in trading FAANG. The Exchange believes that the proposed change would incent firms that have historically qualified for the Credit to trade greater volume to earn the higher (proposed) Credit. And, believes that the lower (existing) volume threshold should still attract firms (including those that have never achieved the Credit) to trade the requisite volume in FAANG to earn the Credit. To the extent that the proposed change attracts more FAANG transactions to the Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution, which, in turn, promotes just and equitable principles of trade and removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
To the extent the proposed change continues to attract greater volume and liquidity (to the Floor or otherwise), the Exchange believes the proposed change would improve the Exchange's overall competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market participants. In the backdrop of the competitive environment in which the Exchange operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase the depth of its market and improve trading opportunities to better compete with other exchange offerings.
The Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether any firms would avail themselves of this proposed fee change, as historically, whether or when a firm qualifies for the MM FAANG Credit has varied month to month. Assuming historical behavior can be predictive of future behavior, the Exchange cannot predict the number of firms that may qualify for the alternative MM FAANG Credit, but believes that firms would be encouraged to take advantage of the modified Credit.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the technical changes to the rule text (
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable allocation of its fees and credits. The proposal is based on the amount and type of business transacted on the Exchange and Market Makers can opt to avail themselves of the MM FAANG Credit or not. To the extent that the proposed change attracts more FAANG transactions to the Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for, among other things, order execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange thereby improving market-wide quality and price discovery.
The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to modify the MM FAANG Credit because the proposed modification would be available to all similarly-situated market participants on an equal and non-discriminatory basis.
The proposal is based on the amount and type of business transacted on the Exchange and Market Maker organizations are not obligated to try to achieve the MM FAANG Credit. In addition, Market Maker organizations have increased obligations with respect to trading on the Exchange, and the Exchange believes that making this this Credit available to Market Maker organizations would more likely result in increased liquidity in FAANG on the Exchange. To the extent that the proposed change attracts a variety of transactions to the Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for, among other things, order execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange thereby improving market-wide quality and price discovery. The resulting increased volume and liquidity would provide more trading opportunities and tighter spreads to all market participants and thus would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
Finally, the Exchange believes that the technical changes to the rule text (
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to (1) amend the fees for NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades by modifying the application of the Access Fee; (2) amend the fees for NYSE Arca Trades by adopting a credit applicable to the Redistribution Fee; and (3) adopt a one-month free trial for all NYSE Arca market data products. The Exchange also proposes to remove certain obsolete text. The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed fee changes on February 3, 2020. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to decrease the fees for certain NYSE Arca market data products, as set forth on the NYSE Arca Equities Proprietary Market Data Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”). The purpose of these fee decreases, taken together with fee decreases filed by the Exchange's affiliated exchanges, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) and NYSE American, Inc. (“NYSE American”),
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to (1) reduce the Access Fees by more than 86% for subscribers of NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades that receive a data feed and use those market data products in a display-only format; (2) provide for a credit applicable to the Redistribution Fee for subscribers of NYSE Arca Trades that use that market data product for display purposes; and (3) adopt a one-month free trial for all NYSE Arca market data products. The Exchange also proposes non-substantive changes to remove certain obsolete text from the Fee Schedule. All of the proposed changes would decrease fees for market data on the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to implement these proposed fee changes on February 3, 2020.
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues, and also recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading services in NMS stocks has become “more fragmented and competitive.”
With the NYSE BQT market data product, NYSE Arca and its affiliates compete head to head with the Nasdaq Basic
Currently, to subscribe to NYSE BQT, subscribers are charged an access fee of $250 per month.
Because NYSE BQT is priced based on the fees associated with the underlying ten market data feeds, the Exchange and its affiliates propose to compete with the Cboe One Feed and Nasdaq Basic by reducing fees for the underlying market data products that comprise NYSE BQT. Together with NYSE and NYSE American, the Exchange similarly proposes to compete for subscribers to NYSE BQT by designing its fee decreases to be attractive to subscribers of NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades that use such products for display-only purposes, which are more likely to be subscribers that service retail investors.
NYSE Arca BBO is a NYSE Arca-only market data product that allows a vendor to redistribute on a real-time basis the same best-bid-and-offer information that NYSE Arca reports under the Consolidated Quotation Plan (“CQ Plan”) for inclusion in the CQ Plan's consolidated quotation information data stream (“NYSE Arca BBO Information”).
NYSE Arca Trades is a NYSE Arca-only market data product that allows a vendor to redistribute on a real-time basis the same last sale information that NYSE Arca reports to the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) for inclusion in the CTA's consolidated data stream and certain other related data elements (“NYSE Arca Last Sale Information”).
Currently, subscribers of each of the NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades products that receive a data feed pay an Access Fee of $750 per month. The Exchange proposes to reduce the Access Fees for subscribers of NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades that receive a data feed and use those products in a display-only format, including for internal use for Professional Users and external distribution to both Professional and Non-Professional Users in a display-only format, from $750 per month (per product) to $100 per month (per product). The Exchange proposes to designate this access fee as a “Per User Access Fee.” A subscriber that receives a data feed and uses the market data product for any other purpose (such as non-display use), including if combined with Per User use, would continue to pay the $750 per month Access Fee.
The proposed rule change would result in lower fees for subscribers of each of NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades products that receive a data feed and use such products for display-only purposes. The proposed Per User Access Fee of $100 per month, lowered from $750 per month, would result in a reduction of more than 86% for subscribers that receive a data feed and use the product in a display-only format. Additionally, the proposed rule change, together with the proposed rule changes by NYSE and NYSE American to similarly reduce the access fees to their BBO and Trades products, would also significantly lower access fees for display-only subscribers of NYSE BQT, from $6,250 per month to $850 per month ($250 + $200 + $200 +$200), a reduction of more than 86%.
The proposed rule change is intended to encourage greater use of NYSE BQT by making it more affordable for data recipients that receive a data feed of
The Exchange currently charges a Redistribution Fee of $750 per month for NYSE Arca Trades. A Redistributor is a vendor or any other person that provides a NYSE Arca data product to a data recipient or to any system that a data recipient uses, irrespective of the means of transmission or access. A Redistributor is required to report to the Exchange each month the number of Professional and Non-Professional Users and data feed recipients that receive NYSE Arca Trades. As noted above, for display use of NYSE Arca Trades, the Exchange currently charges a Per User Fee of $4 per month for each Professional User and a Per User Fee of $0.25 per month for each Non-Professional User. These user fees apply to each display device that has access to NYSE Arca Trades.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a credit that would be applicable to Redistributors that provide external distribution of NYSE Arca Trades to Professional and Non-Professional Users in a display-only format. As proposed, such Redistributors would receive a credit equal to the amount of the monthly Professional User and Non-Professional User Fees for such external distribution, up to a maximum of the Redistribution Fee for NYSE Arca Trades. For example, a Redistributor that reports external Professional Users and Non-Professional Users in a month totaling $750 or more would receive a maximum credit of $750 for that month, which could effectively reduce its Redistribution Fee to zero. If that same Redistributor were to report external User quantities in a month totaling $500 of monthly usage, that Redistributor would receive a credit of $500. Redistributors would have an incentive to increase their redistribution of NYSE Arca Trades because the credit they would be eligible to receive would increase if they report additional external User quantities.
By targeting this proposed credit to Redistributors that provide external distribution of NYSE Arca Trades in a display-only product, the Exchange believes that this proposed fee decrease would provide an incentive for Redistributors to make the NYSE BQT market data product available to its customers. Specifically, if a data recipient is interested in subscribing to NYSE BQT and relies on a Redistributor to obtain market data products from the Exchange, that data recipient would need its Redistributor to redistribute NYSE BQT. Currently, Redistributors that redistribute NYSE Arca market data products do not necessarily also make NYSE BQT available. Because data recipients that use NYSE BQT do so for display-only use, and therefore would use the NYSE Arca Trades market data product for display-only use, the Exchange believes that this proposed fee decrease for Redistributors of NYSE Arca Trades would provide an incentive for Redistributors to make NYSE BQT available to its customers, which will increase the availability of NYSE BQT to a larger potential population of data recipients.
The Exchange proposes a one-month free trial for any firm that subscribes to a particular NYSE Arca market data product for the first time. As proposed, a first-time subscriber would be any firm that has not previously subscribed to a particular NYSE Arca market data product listed on the Fee Schedule. As proposed, a first-time subscriber of a particular NYSE Arca market data product would not be charged the Access Fee, Non-Display Fee, any applicable Professional and Non-Professional User Fee, and Redistribution Fee for that product for one calendar month. For example, a firm that currently subscribes to NYSE Arca BBO would be eligible to receive a free one-month trial of NYSE Arca Trades, whether in a display-only format or for non-display use. On the other hand, a firm that currently pays an Access Fee and receives NYSE Arca BBO for non-display use would not be eligible to receive a free one-month trial of NYSE Arca BBO in a display-only format. The proposed free trial would be for the first full calendar month following the date a subscriber is approved to receive trial access to the particular NYSE Arca market data product. The Exchange would provide the one-month free trial for each particular product to each subscriber once.
The Exchange believes that providing a one-month free trial to NYSE Arca market data products listed on the Fee Schedule would enable potential subscribers to determine whether a particular NYSE Arca market data product provides value to their business models before fully committing to expend development and implementation costs related to the receipt of that product, and is intended to encourage increased use of the Exchange's market data products by defraying some of the development and implementation costs subscribers would ordinarily have to expend before using a product.
In December 2017, the Exchange amended the Fee Schedule to adopt footnote 6 regarding a Decommission Extension Fee for receipt of the NYSE Arca Integrated Feed market data product.
The Exchange also proposes a non-substantive amendment to move the text describing the Enterprise Fee on the Fee Schedule to appear below the Non-Professional User Fee. The Exchange is not making any substantive changes to this fee. The Exchange believes that this proposed non-substantive change will make the Fee Schedule easier to navigate, as the Enterprise Fee is related to Per User fees.
The Exchange also proposes two non-substantive, clarifying amendments to footnote 4. First, the Exchange proposes to delete the term “clients” and replace it with the term “Professional Users and Non-Professional Users.” This proposed change is consistent with the operation of the Enterprise Fee, which relates only to the Professional User and Non-Professional Per User fees. Second, the Exchange proposes to insert “Arca” in front of BBO and Trades to correctly
As noted above, the proposed rule change is designed to reduce the overall cost of NYSE BQT by reducing specified fees applicable to the underlying market data products that comprise NYSE BQT. There is currently only one subscriber to NYSE BQT (a vendor), and the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would provide an incentive both for data subscribers to subscribe to NYSE BQT and for Redistributors to subscribe to the product for purposes of providing external distribution of NYSE BQT.
Because the proposed rule change is targeted to potential customers of NYSE BQT, which is designed to be a product for display-only data subscribers, the proposed changes to the NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades Access Fee are narrowly construed with that purpose in mind. Accordingly, these proposed fee changes are not designed for data subscribers that use NYSE Arca BBO or NYSE Arca Trades for non-display use, or for Redistributors that redistribute NYSE Arca Trades to data subscribers that use that market data product for non-display uses. This proposed rule change would not result in any changes to the market data fees for NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades for such data subscribers.
The Exchange believes that five current subscribers to the NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades would meet the qualifications to be eligible for these proposed fee changes. The Exchange further believes that this proposed rule change has the potential to attract new Redistributors for NYSE BQT, as well as new NYSE BQT subscribers that would be subscribing to NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades for the first time.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted SROs and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues, and also recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
With respect to market data, the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress intended that the market system “evolve through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are removed” and that the SEC wield its regulatory power “in those situations where competition may not be sufficient,” such as in the creation of a “consolidated transactional reporting system.”
The court agreed with the Commission's conclusion that “Congress intended that `competitive forces should dictate the services and practices that constitute the U.S. national market system for trading equity securities.' ”
In 2018, Charles M. Jones, the Robert W. Lear of Professor of Finance and Economics of the Columbia University School of Business, conducted an analysis of the market for equity market data in the United States. He canvassed the demand for both consolidated and exchange proprietary market data products and the uses to which those products were put by market participants, and reported his conclusions in a paper annexed hereto.
• “The market [for exchange market data] is characterized by robust competition: Exchanges compete with each other in selling proprietary market data products. They also compete with consolidated data feeds and with data provided by alternative trading systems (`ATSs'). Barriers to entry are very low, so existing exchanges must also take into account competition from new entrants, who generally try to build market share by offering their proprietary market data products for free for some period of time.”
• “Although there are regulatory requirements for some market participants to use consolidated data products, there is no requirement for market participants to purchase any proprietary market data product for regulatory purposes.”
• “There are a variety of data products, and consumers of equity market data choose among them based on their needs. Like most producers, exchanges offer a variety of market data products at different price levels. Advanced proprietary market data products provide greater value to those who subscribe. As in any other market, each potential subscriber takes the features and prices of available products into account in choosing what market data products to buy based on its business model.”
• “Exchange equity market data fees are a small cost for the industry overall: The data demonstrates that total exchange market data revenues are orders of magnitude smaller than (i) broker-dealer commissions, (ii) investment bank earnings from equity trading, and (iii) revenues earned by third-party vendors.”
• “For proprietary exchange data feeds, the main question is whether there is a competitive market for proprietary market data. More than 40 active exchanges and alternative trading systems compete vigorously in both the market for order flow and in the market for market data. The two are closely linked: An exchange needs to consider the negative impact on its order flow if
Professor Jones' conclusions are consistent with the demonstration of the competitive constraints on the pricing of market data demonstrated by analysis of exchanges as platforms for market data and trading services, as shown below.
An exchange may demonstrate that its fees are constrained by competitive forces by showing that the platform theory of competition applies.
As the United States Supreme Court recognized in
To ensure sufficient participation, two-sided platforms must be sensitive to the prices that they charge each side. . . . Raising the price on side A risks losing participation on that side, which decreases the value of the platform to side B. If the participants on side B leave due to this loss in value, then the platform has even less value to side A—risking a feedback loop of declining demand. . . . Two-sided platforms therefore must take these indirect network effects into account before making a change in price on either side.
The Exchange and its affiliated exchanges have long maintained that they function as platforms between consumers of market data and consumers of trading services. Proving the existence of linkages between the two sides of this platform requires an in-depth economic analysis of both public data and confidential Exchange data about particular customers' trading activities and market data purchases. Exchanges, however, are prohibited from sharing details about these specific customer activities and purchases. For example, pursuant to Exchange Rule 7.41, transactions executed on the Exchange are processed anonymously.
The Exchange and its affiliated exchanges have retained a third party expert, Marc Rysman, Professor of Economics Boston University, to analyze how platform economics applies to stock exchanges' sale of market data products and trading services, and to explain how this affects the assessment of competitive forces affecting the exchanges' data fees.
Professor Rysman's analysis of this confidential firm-level data shows that firms that purchased the NYSE Integrated Feed market data product after its introduction were more likely to route orders to NYSE as opposed to one of the other NYSE-affiliated exchanges, such as NYSE Arca or NYSE American.
From this empirical evidence, Professor Rysman concludes:
• “[D]ata is more valuable when it reflects more trading activity and more liquidity-providing orders. These linkages alone are enough to make platform economics necessary for understanding the pricing of market data.”
• “[L]inkages running in the opposite direction, from data to trading, are also very likely to exist. This is because market data from an exchange reduces uncertainty about the likelihood, price, or timing of execution for an order on that exchange. This reduction in uncertainty makes trading on that exchange more attractive for traders that subscribe to that exchange's market data. Increased trading by data subscribers, in turn, makes trading on the exchange in question more attractive for traders that do not subscribe to the exchange's market data.”
• The “mechanisms by which market data makes trading on an exchange more attractive for subscribers to market data . . . apply to a wide assortment of market data products, including BBO, order book, and full order-by-order depth of book data products at all exchanges.”
• “[E]mpirical evidence confirms that stock exchanges are platforms for data and trading.”
• “The platform nature of stock exchanges means that data fees cannot be analyzed in isolation, without accounting for the competitive dynamics in trading services.”
• “Competition is properly understood as being between platforms (
• “Data fees, data use, trading fees, and order flow are all interrelated.”
• “Competition for order flow can discipline the pricing of market data, and vice-versa.”
• “As with platforms generally, overall competition between exchanges will limit their overall profitability, not margins on any particular side of the platform.”
Professor Rysman's conclusions that exchanges function as platforms for market data and transaction services mean that exchanges do not set fees for
Similarly, the Commission itself has recognized that the market for trading services in NMS stocks has become “more fragmented and competitive.”
Further, low barriers to entry mean that new exchanges may rapidly and inexpensively enter the market and offer additional substitute platforms to compete with the Exchange.
Given Professor Rysman's conclusion that exchanges are platforms for market data and trading, this fierce competition for order flow on the trading side of the platform acts to constrain, or “discipline,” the pricing of market data on the other side of the platform.
In sum, the fierce competition for order flow thus constrains any exchange from pricing its market data at a supracompetitive price, and constrains the Exchange in setting its fees at issue here.
The proposed fees are therefore reasonable because in setting them, the Exchange is constrained by the availability of numerous substitute platforms offering market data products and trading. Such substitutes need not be identical, but only substantially similar to the product at hand.
More specifically, in reducing specified fees for the NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades market data products, the Exchange is constrained by the fact that, if its pricing across the platform is unattractive to customers, customers have their pick of an increasing number of alternative platforms to use instead of the Exchange. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant factors in order to establish reasonable fees. The existence of numerous alternative platforms to the Exchange's platform ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable market data fees without suffering the negative effects of that decision in the fiercely competitive market for trading order flow.
Even putting aside the facts that exchanges are platforms and that pricing decisions on the two sides of the platform are intertwined, the Exchange is constrained in setting the proposed market data fees by the availability of numerous substitute market data products.
The NYSE BQT market data product is subject to significant competitive forces that constrain its pricing. Specifically, as described above, NYSE BQT competes head-to-head with the Nasdaq Basic product and the Cboe One Feed. These products each serve as reasonable substitutes for one another as they are each designed to provide investors with a unified view of real-time quotes and last-sale prices in all Tape A, B, and C securities. Each product provides subscribers with consolidated top-of-book quotes and trades from multiple U.S. equities markets. In the case of NYSE BQT, this product provides top-of-book quotes and trades data from five NYSE-affiliated U.S. equities exchanges, which together account for approximately 24% of consolidated U.S. equities trading volume as of October 2019.
In addition to competing with proprietary data products from Nasdaq
The fact that this filing is proposing reductions in certain fees, fee credits, and free trial periods is itself confirmation of the inherently competitive nature of the market for the sale of proprietary market data. For example, Cboe recently filed proposed rule changes to reduce certain of its Cboe One Feed fees and noted that it attracted two additional customers because of the reduced fees.
The Exchange notes that NYSE Arca BBO, NYSE Arca Trades, and NYSE BQT are entirely optional. The Exchange and its affiliates are not required to make the proprietary data products that are the subject of this proposed rule change available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers, nor is any firm or investor required to purchase these data products. Unlike some other data products (
In addition, in the case of products that are also redistributed through market data vendors, such as Bloomberg and Refinitiv, the vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for proprietary data products because they control the primary means of access to certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline based upon their business models. For example, vendors that assess a surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary products that their end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Currently, only one vendor subscribes to NYSE BQT, and that vendor has limited redistribution of NYSE BQT. No other vendors currently subscribe to NYSE BQT and likely will not unless their customers request it, and customers will not elect to pay the proposed fees unless such product can provide value by sufficiently increasing revenues or reducing costs in the customer's business in a manner that will offset the fees. All of these factors operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data products.
Because of the availability of substitutes, an exchange that overprices its market data products stands a high risk that users may substitute another source of market data information for its own. Those competitive pressures imposed by available alternatives are evident in the Exchange's proposed pricing.
In setting the proposed fees, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant factors in order to establish reasonable fees. The existence of numerous alternatives to the Exchange's platform and, more specifically, alternatives to the market data products, including proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees when vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if the attendant fees are not justified by the returns that any particular vendor or data recipient would achieve through the purchase.
The specific fees that the Exchange proposes for NYSE Arca Trades and NYSE Arca BBO are reasonable, for the following additional reasons.
The Exchange determined to charge the $100 access fee for its proposed Per User Access Fee because it constitutes a substantial reduction of the current fee, with the intended purpose of increasing use of NYSE BQT. NYSE BQT has been in place since 2014 but has only one subscriber, which itself has limited distribution of the product. The Exchange believes that in order to compete with other indicative pricing products such as Nasdaq Basic and Cboe One Feed, it needs to provide a meaningful financial incentive for data recipients to subscribe to NYSE BQT. Accordingly, the proposed reduction to the Access Fees for NYSE Arca Trades and NYSE Arca BBO, together with the proposed reduction to the Access Fees for NYSE BBO, NYSE Trades, NYSE American BBO, and NYSE American Trades, is reasonable because the reductions will make NYSE BQT a more attractive offering for data recipients and make it more competitive with Nasdaq Basic and Cboe One Feed. For example, the External Distribution Fee for Cboe One Feed is currently $5,000 (which is the sum of the External Distribution fees for the four exchange data products that are included in Cboe One Feed) plus a Data Consolidation Fee of $1,000, for a total of $6,000. Evidence of the competition among exchange groups for these products has previously been demonstrated via fee changes. For example, following the introduction of the Cboe One Feed, Nasdaq responded by reducing its fees for the Nasdaq Basic product.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable.
The Exchange believes the proposed fees for NYSE Arca Trades and NYSE Arca BBO are allocated fairly and equitably among the various categories of users of the feed, and any differences among categories of users are justified.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees for the NYSE Arca market data products are equitably allocated.
The Exchange believes the proposed fees are not unfairly discriminatory because any differences in the application of the fees are based on meaningful distinctions between customers, and those meaningful distinctions are not unfairly discriminatory between customers.
The Exchange believes that there is a meaningful distinction between vendors that distribute market data in a display-only format, as such vendors are more likely to service the non-professional community, and vendors that distribute market data for non-display use only, as users of non-display data are more likely to be professionals that derive substantial value from such non-display
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees neither favor nor penalize one or more categories of market participants in a manner that would impose an undue market on competition. As shown above, to the extent that particular proposed fees apply to only a subset of subscribers, those distinctions are not unfairly discriminatory and do unfairly burden one set of customers over another. To the contrary, by tailoring the proposed fees in this manner, the Exchange believes that it has eliminated the potential burden on competition that might result, for instance, from unfairly asking vendors that distribute market data in a display-only format to pay the same fees as vendors that distribute market data for non-display use to professionals that derive substantial value from such non-display uses.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not impose a burden on competition or on other exchanges that is not necessary or appropriate because of the availability of numerous substitute market data products. Specifically, as described above, NYSE BQT competes head-to-head with the Nasdaq Basic product and the Cboe One Feed. These products each serve as reasonable substitutes for one another as they are each designed to provide investors with a unified view of real-time quotes and last-sale prices in all Tape A, B, and C securities. Each product provides subscribers with consolidated top-of-book quotes and trades from multiple U.S. equities markets. NYSE BQT provides top-of-book quotes and trades data from five NYSE-affiliated U.S. equities exchanges, while Cboe One Feed similarly provides top-of-book quotes and trades data from Cboe's four U.S. equities exchanges. NYSE BQT, Nasdaq Basic, and Cboe One Feed are all intended to provide indicative pricing and therefore, are reasonable substitutes for one another. Additionally, market data vendors are also able to offer close substitutes to NYSE BQT. Because market data users can find suitable substitute feeds, an exchange that overprices its market data products stands a high risk that users may substitute another source of market data information for its own. These competitive pressures ensure that no one exchange's market data fees can impose an unnecessary burden on competition, and the Exchange's proposed fees do not do so here.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 17, 2019, NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American” or “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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statement may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend IEX Rule 11.190(e) to expand its existing anti-internalization functionality and make conforming and clarifying changes to IEX Rule 11.190(e) and other IEX rules.
IEX currently offers optional anti-internalization functionality to Users
As provided in the supplementary material to IEX Rule 11.190(e), IEX's anti-internalization functionality does not relieve or otherwise modify the duty of best execution owed to orders received from public customers. As such, market participants using the AGID modifier need to take appropriate steps to ensure public customer orders that do not execute because they were subject to anti-internalization ultimately receive the same execution price (or better) than they would have originally obtained if execution of the order was not inhibited by anti-internalization. Furthermore, Market Makers
In order to provide additional flexibility to Users, the Exchange proposes to expand the anti-internalization functionality it offers by adding four additional anti-internalization modifiers, to be referred to as Anti-Internalization Qualifier (“AIQ”) modifiers, each of which would implement anti-internalization in a different manner.
In addition, a User can also specify the type of anti-internalization functionality to be applied by including one of the following five AIQ modifiers on the order message, which specifies how two orders subject to anti-internalization would interact:
1. Cancel Oldest (“CO”). An active order marked with the CO AIQ modifier will not execute against opposite side resting interest marked with any AIQ modifier within the same AIQ group. The older order will be canceled back to the originating User. In accordance with User instructions, the newer order will be cancelled back to the originating User or remain on or post to the Order Book.
2. Cancel Newest (“CN”). An active order marked with the CN AIQ modifier will not execute against opposite side resting interest marked with any AIQ modifier within the same AIQ group. The newer order will be cancelled back to the originating User. The older order will remain on the Order Book.
3. Cancel Both (“CB”). An active order marked with the CB AIQ modifier will not execute against opposite side resting interest marked with any AIQ modifier within the same AIQ group. The entire size of both orders will be cancelled back to the originating User.
4. Cancel Smallest (“CS”). An active order marked with the CS AIQ modifier will not execute against opposite side resting interest marked with any AIQ modifier within the same AIQ group. If both orders are equivalent in size, both orders will be cancelled back to the originating User. If the orders are not equivalent in size, the smaller of the two orders will be cancelled back to the originating User and the larger order will remain on or post to the Order Book.
5. Decrement Larger—Original Order Quantity (“DLO”). An active order marked with the DLO AIQ modifier will
If a User includes an AIQ group identifier, but not an AIQ modifier on an order, the Exchange will apply the default Cancel Oldest AIQ modifier to the order. If the AIQ modifiers on two orders within the same AIQ group that would otherwise execute against each other are not the same (including application of the default Cancel Oldest AIQ modifier), the AIQ modifier on the order with the newer timestamp will control the interaction between the two orders. Determination of “newer” and “older” would be based upon each order's timestamp, as specified in IEX Rule 11.220(a)(1)(C).
The proposed rule change is designed to provide additional flexibility to Users in how they implement self-trade prevention provided by the Exchange, and thereby better manage their order flow and prevent undesirable executions or the potential for “wash sales” that may occur as a result of the speed of trading in today's marketplace. Based on informal discussions with Members, the Exchange believes that the proposed additional types of anti-internalization functionality will be useful to Members in implementing their own compliance controls. And the additional AIQ functionality may assist Users in complying with certain rules and regulations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) that preclude and/or limit managing broker-dealers of such accounts from trading as principal with orders generated for those accounts.
The Exchange notes that, as with the current anti-internalization functionality offered by IEX, use of the proposed new AIQ modifiers will not alleviate, or otherwise exempt, Users from their best execution obligations. As such, market participants using the AIQ modifiers will continue to be obligated to take appropriate steps to ensure that customer orders that do not execute because they were subject to anti-internalization ultimately receive the same price, or a better price, than they would have received had execution of the orders not been inhibited by anti-internalization.
IEX also proposes to make several conforming and clarifying changes to IEX Rule 11.190(e) and other IEX rules, as described below:
• Change the rule title of IEX Rule 11.190(e) from “Anti-Internalization Group Identifier (“AGID”) Modifier” to “Anti-Internalization (“AIQ”) Functionality” to reflect the expanded new functionality.
• Add a new subparagraph (2) of IEX Rule 11.190(e) to set forth the five AIQ modifiers to be offered by IEX, as described above, and renumber existing subparagraphs (2)-(5) as (3)-(6).
• Replace references to the “group type” with the term AIQ group in IEX Rule 11.190(e).
• Revise the text of subparagraph (5) of IEX Rule 11.190(e) (previously subparagraph (4)) regarding compatibility of Book Recheck and treatment of an active order that has been invited to Recheck against the Order Book to reflect the new AIQ modifiers. Previously, the subparagraph stated that if the active order that has been invited to Recheck against the Order Book is older than a resting order subject to anti-internalization, the active order will be cancelled in accordance with the existing anti-internalization functionality that cancels the older order. As proposed, the subparagraph clarifies that the active order will be treated as older or newer based upon its timestamp. As set forth in the new IEX Rule 11.190(e), the AIQ modifier on the newer of the two orders will control the interaction between the two orders subject to anti-internalization.
• Replace the references to the “AGID modifier” with references to the “AIQ functionality” in Supplementary Materials .01-.03 to IEX Rule 11.190(e).
• Replace all references to “AGID modifiers” with “AIQ modifiers” in IEX Rules 11.231(b)(1), 11.350(c)(2)(C), 11.350(d)(2)(C), 11.350(e)(2)(D), 11.350(f)(2)(F), and 11.350(f)(3)(B)(iii).
• Revise the rule text in Rule 11.151(b) (“Market Maker Obligations”) that refers to quotations that are “designated with an AGID modifier which is the same as that of an active opposite side order and originating from the same group type” to quotations that are “part of the same AIQ group” and replace “AGID modifiers” with “AIQ functionality” in the last sentence.
Replace the text in Rule 11.220(7) (“Priority of Orders—Anti-Internalization”) that refers to orders “entered under the same AGID modifier” with “that are part of the same AIQ group”. In addition, IEX proposes to add language referencing IEX Rule 11.190(e) to specify that orders subject to anti-internalization that are part of the same AIQ group will not execute against each other as set forth in IEX Rule 11.190(e).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
As noted in the Purpose section, IEX believes that providing Users with more flexibility and control over the interactions of their orders will better prevent undesirable executions or the potential for “wash sales” that may occur as a result of the speed of trading in today's marketplace. And the additional AIQ functionality may better assist Users in complying with certain ERISA rules and regulations that preclude and/or limit managing broker-dealers of such accounts from trading as principal with orders generated for those accounts.
Further, the Exchange believes that providing enhanced AIQ functionality may streamline certain regulatory functions by reducing false positive results that may occur on wash trading surveillance reports when two orders in the same AIQ group are executed, notwithstanding that the transaction may not constitute a wash trade.
The Exchange also believes that it is consistent with the Act to provide that the Cancel Oldest AIQ modifier is the default modifier if a User does not include an AIQ modifier on an order subject to anti-internalization because such functionality is less complex than the other AIQ modifiers since it simply cancels the older order. The Cancel Oldest AIQ modifier is also identical to the current functionality, and therefore the Exchange believes that a User that fails to include a specific modifier would most likely expect the cancel oldest functionality to apply.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that it is consistent with the Act for the AIQ modifier on the newer order to control the interaction between two orders subject to anti-internalization that would otherwise execute, since the newer order would likely represent the User's more current trading objective.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed conforming and clarifying rule changes, as discussed in the Purpose section, are consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because they will simply conform terminology and provide clarity and consistency on how the Exchange's anti-internalization functionality works.
Finally, the Exchange notes that the proposed additional anti-internalization functionality is substantially similar to the anti-internalization interactions offered by other national securities exchanges.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, IEX believes that offering additional anti-internalization functionality may enhance its ability to compete with other exchanges that offer such additional functionality. Further, the proposed rule change is designed to enhance the anti-internalization functionality offered to Users by providing additional flexibility over the manner in which their orders subject to anti-internalization controls interact, while assisting Users with compliance with the securities laws that prohibit wash trading as well as ERISA requirements. The Exchange also notes that the proposed new functionality, like the current anti-internalization functionality, is completely optional and Users can determine on an order-by-order, MPID, or User basis whether to apply anti-internalization protections to orders submitted to the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As described above, competing exchanges have similar anti-internalization functionality. Moreover, there is no barrier to other national securities exchanges adopting similar anti-internalization protections.
The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All Users will continue to be eligible to use the Exchange's anti-internalization functionality. While not every User engages in a business that might involve risks of self-matching against its own orders, for the Users that do face that risk, the proposed additional anti-internalization functionality will help the User with its own compliance with the securities laws and ERISA. Further, implementation of anti-internalization functionality impacts only a User's orders, and not the orders of other Members.
Finally, the proposed conforming and clarifying rule changes, as discussed in the Purpose section, are not designed to address any competitive issue, but rather to conform terminology and provide clarity and consistency on the operation of the Exchange's anti-internalization functionality.
An IEX employee exchanged informal email messages responding to a Member that had inquired as to whether IEX would be expanding the types of AIQ functionality available. The email messages discussed the additional AIQ functionality that is the subject of this proposed rule change. The Member provided feedback that was supportive of the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change meets the criteria of subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares of the AdvisorShares Pure US Cannabis ETF under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the AdvisorShares Pure US Cannabis ETF (the “Fund”) under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E, which provides generic criteria applicable to the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange.
AdvisorShares Investments, LLC (the “Adviser”) is the investment adviser for the Fund. AdvisorShares Trust (the “Trust”) and the Adviser manage the Fund's investments, subject to the oversight and supervision by the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Trust.
Commentary .06 to Rule 8.600-E provides that, if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect and maintain a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio. In addition, Commentary .06 further requires that personnel who make decisions on the open-end fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio. Commentary .06 to Rule 8.600-E is similar to Commentary .03(a)(i) and (iii) to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3); however, Commentary .06 in connection with the establishment and maintenance of a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer reflects the applicable open-end fund's portfolio, not an underlying benchmark index, as is the case with index-based funds.
The Adviser is not registered as a broker-dealer. The Adviser is not affiliated with any broker-dealers. In the event (a) the Adviser becomes registered as a broker-dealer or newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser is a registered broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with a broker-dealer, it will implement and maintain a “fire wall” with respect to its relevant personnel or broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the portfolio, and will be subject to procedures, each designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such portfolio.
According to the Registration Statement, the investment objective of the Fund is to seek long-term capital appreciation. The Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective by investing, under normal market conditions,
In addition to its investment in securities of companies that derive a significant portion of their revenue from the marijuana and hemp business, and in derivatives providing exposure to such securities, the Fund may invest in securities of companies that, in the opinion of the Advisor, may have current or future revenues from cannabis-related business or that are registered with the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) specifically for the purpose of handling marijuana for lawful research and development of cannabis or cannabinoid-related products.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will not invest directly in or hold ownership in any companies that engage in cannabis-related business unless permitted by national and local laws of the relevant jurisdiction, including U.S. federal and state laws. The Fund has represented that this restriction does not apply to the Fund's investment in derivatives instruments. All of the Fund's investments, including derivatives instruments, would be made in accordance with all applicable laws, including U.S. federal and state laws. The Fund will concentrate at least 25% of its investments in the pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and life sciences industry group within the health care sector.
The Fund primarily may invest in U.S. and foreign exchange-listed equity securities (described below), and in derivative instruments (described below) intended to provide exposure to such securities.
The Fund may invest in the following types of U.S. and foreign exchange-listed equity securities: Common stock; preferred stock; warrants; Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs); and rights.
The Fund may invest in U.S. exchange-listed exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”)
The Fund may hold cash and cash equivalents.
The Fund may hold over-the-counter (“OTC”) total return swaps on U.S. and foreign exchange-listed equity securities.
The Fund may invest in U.S. exchange-listed equity options and equity index options.
The Fund may invest in Rule 144A securities.
The Fund will not invest in securities or other financial instruments that have not been described in this proposed rule change.
Investments in derivative instruments will be made in accordance with the 1940 Act and consistent with the Fund's investment objective and policies.
To limit the potential risk associated with such transactions, the Fund will enter into offsetting transactions or segregate or “earmark” assets determined to be liquid by the Adviser in accordance with procedures established by the Trust's Board and in accordance with the 1940 Act or as permitted by applicable Commission guidance. These procedures have been adopted consistent with Section 18 of the 1940 Act and related Commission guidance. In addition, the Fund has included appropriate risk disclosure in its offering documents, including leveraging risk. Leveraging risk is the risk that certain transactions of the Fund, including the Fund's use of derivatives, may give rise to leverage, causing the Fund to be more volatile than if it had not been leveraged.
The Fund's investments, including derivatives, will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage (although certain derivatives and other investments may result in leverage). That is, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
The Adviser believes there will be minimal, if any, impact to the arbitrage mechanism as a result of the Fund's use of derivatives. The Adviser understands that market makers and participants should be able to value derivatives as long as the positions are disclosed with relevant information. The Adviser believes that the price at which Shares of the Fund trade will continue to be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities created by the ability to purchase or redeem Shares of the Fund at their net asset value (“NAV”), which should ensure that Shares of the Fund will not trade at a material discount or premium in relation to their NAV.
The Trust issues and sells Shares of the Fund only in aggregations of 25,000 Shares (each aggregation is called a “Creation Unit”) on a continuous basis through the Distributor at the NAV next determined after receipt of an order in proper form on any Business Day.
The consideration for a purchase of Creation Units generally will consist of an in-kind deposit of a portfolio of securities and other investments (the “Deposit Securities”) for each Creation Unit constituting a substantial replication, or a representation, of the securities included in the Fund's portfolio and an amount of cash computed as described below (the “Cash Component”). The Cash Component together with the Deposit Securities, as applicable, are referred to as the “Fund Deposit,” which represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for a Creation Unit of the Fund.
The Cash Component would be an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares (per Creation Unit) and the “Deposit Amount,” which is an amount equal to the aggregate market value of the Deposit Securities, and serves to compensate for any differences between the NAV per Creation Unit and the Deposit Amount.
The Administrator, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), makes available on each Business Day, immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m. E.T.), the list of the names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Security to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous Business Day) for the Fund. Such Fund Deposit is applicable, subject to any adjustments as described below, in order to effect creations of Creation Units of the Fund until such time as the next-announced composition of the Deposit Securities is made available.
All orders to create Creation Units generally must be received by the Distributor no later than 3:00 p.m. E.T. on the date such order is placed in order for creation of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of the Fund as determined on such date.
In addition, the Trust reserves the right to permit or require the substitution of an amount of cash (
To be eligible to place orders with the Distributor to create Creation Units of the Fund, an entity must be (1) a “Participating Party,”
Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by the Distributor and only on a Business Day.
The Administrator, through NSCC, will make available immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (9:30 a.m. E.T.) on each Business Day, the securities (“Fund Securities”) that will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to redemption requests received in proper form on that day. The Fund Securities received on redemption may not be identical to Deposit Securities that are applicable to creations of Creation Units. Unless cash redemptions are available or specified for the Fund, the redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit generally consist of Fund Securities as announced by the Administrator on the Business Day of the request for redemption, plus cash in an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, as next determined after a receipt of a request in proper form, and the value of the Fund Securities, less the redemption transaction fee. In the event that the Fund Securities have a value greater than the NAV of the Shares, a compensating cash payment equal to the differential is required to be made by or through an Authorized Participant by the redeeming shareholder.
In order to redeem Creation Units of the Fund, an Authorized Participant must submit an order to redeem for one or more Creation Units. An order to redeem Creation Units of a Fund using the Clearing Process generally must be received by the Administrator not later than 3:00 p.m. E.T. on the Business Day of the request for redemption in order for such order to be effected based on the NAV of the Fund as next determined. An order to redeem Creation Units of the Fund using the NSCC Clearing Process made in proper form but received by the Fund after 3:00 p.m. E.T. will be deemed received on the next Business Day immediately following the day on which such order request is transmitted.
The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change because the portfolio for the Fund will not meet all of the “generic” listing requirements of Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E applicable to the listing of Managed Fund Shares. The Fund's portfolio will meet all such requirements except for those set forth in Commentary .01(e), as described below.
The Fund will not comply with the requirements set forth in Commentary .01(e) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E with respect to the Fund's investments in OTC total return swaps on U.S. and foreign exchange-listed equity securities.
The Adviser believes that it is important to provide the Fund with additional flexibility to manage its investments. OTC derivatives provide the Fund with flexibility as well as a precise means to effectively gain exposure to U.S. and foreign exchange-listed equities that the Fund otherwise would not be able to invest in or choose not to invest in directly. Generally, OTC derivatives can be customized to a greater degree and can provide equity exposure with Fund assets, as well as allow for control over the duration of the exposure which can also mitigate trading costs. Therefore, while the Fund is able to invest 20% of the assets in the Fund's portfolio in OTC derivatives pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E, Commentary .01(e), the Exchange believes it is appropriate to apply a limit of up to 60% of the Fund's assets to the Fund's investments in OTC total return swaps on U.S. and foreign exchange-listed equity securities (calculated as the aggregate gross notional value of such OTC derivatives), that are used for equity investment exposure purposes, as described above.
The Adviser represents that deviations from the generic requirements are necessary for the Fund to achieve its investment objective in a manner that is cost-effective and that maximizes investors' returns because OTC derivatives generally provide the Fund with more flexibility to negotiate the exact exposure that the Fund requires, and minimize trading costs because OTC derivatives are not subject to costs of rolling that are associated with listed derivatives.
The Adviser represents that it intends to engage in strategies that utilize total return swaps (which are traded OTC), as described above, based on its investment strategies. Depending on market conditions, the exposure due to these strategies may exceed 20% of the Fund's assets. The Adviser represents further that the swaps market is OTC, and, as such, it is not possible to implement these strategies efficiently using listed derivatives. In addition, use of OTC swaps may be an important means to reduce risk in the Fund's equity investments, or, depending on market conditions, to enhance returns of such investments. If the Fund were limited to investing up to 20% of assets in OTC derivatives, the Fund would have to exclude or underweight these strategies and would be less diversified, concentrating risk in the other strategies it will utilize.
The Exchange notes that, other than Commentary .01(e), the Shares of the Fund will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E and will meet all other requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E and Commentary .01 thereto.
The Adviser represents that the proposed exception described above is consistent with the Fund's investment objective, and will further assist the Adviser to achieve such investment objective.
The Fund's website (
On a daily basis, the Fund will disclose the information required under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E(c)(2) to the extent applicable. The website information will be publicly available at no charge.
In addition, a basket composition file, which includes the security names and share quantities, if applicable, required to be delivered in exchange for the Fund's Shares, together with estimates and actual cash components, will be publicly disseminated daily prior to the opening of the Exchange via the NSCC. The basket represents one Creation Unit of the Fund. Authorized Participants may refer to the basket composition file for information regarding any security, and any other instrument that may comprise the Fund's basket on a given day.
Investors can also obtain the Trust's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), the Fund's Shareholder Reports, and the Fund's Forms N-CSR and Forms N-SAR, filed twice a year. The Fund's SAI and Shareholder Reports will be available free upon request from the Trust, and those documents and the Form N-CSR, Form N-PX and Form N-SAR may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's website at
Intra-day and closing price information regarding U.S. exchange-listed equity options and equity index options will be available from the exchange on which such instruments are traded. Price information relating to
Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers.
Quotation and last sale information for the Shares, ETFs, closed-end funds and other U.S. exchange-traded equity securities will be available via the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) high-speed line. Exchange-traded options quotation and last sale information for options cleared via the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) are available via the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”). In addition, the Portfolio Indicative Value (“PIV”), as defined in NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E(c)(3), will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Core Trading Session.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Rule 7.12-E have been reached. Trading also may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the securities and/or the financial instruments comprising the Disclosed Portfolio of the Fund; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Shares will trade on the NYSE Arca Marketplace from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. E.T. in accordance with NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E (Trading Sessions). The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Rule 7.6-E, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.
With the exception of the requirements of Commentary .01(e) as described above under “Application of Generic Listing Requirements,” the Shares of the Fund will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E. The Exchange represents that for initial and continued listing, the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act, as provided by NYSE Arca Rule 5.3-E. A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange. The Exchange has obtained a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time.
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, certain exchange-traded equity securities (including ETFs) and certain exchange-traded options with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”), and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, certain exchange-traded equity securities (including ETFs) and certain exchange-traded options from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, certain exchange-traded equity securities (including ETFs) and certain exchange-traded options from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement (“CSSA”). In addition, FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, is able to access, as needed, trade information for certain cash equivalents held by the Fund reported to FINRA's TRACE.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio or reference asset, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in this rule filing shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange.
The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit (“ETP”) Holders in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares of the Fund. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Arca Rule 9.2-E(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Early and Late Trading Sessions when an updated PIV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (4) how information regarding the PIV and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (5) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information.
In addition, the Bulletin will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Bulletin will discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. The Bulletin will also disclose that the NAV for the Shares of the Fund will be calculated after 4:00 p.m. E.T. each trading day.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act that an exchange have rules that are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E. The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange. The Adviser is not registered as a broker-dealer nor is the Adviser affiliated with a broker-dealer. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, certain exchange-traded equity securities (including ETFs) and certain exchange-traded options with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, certain exchange-traded equity securities (including ETFs) and certain exchange-traded options from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, certain exchange-traded equity securities (including ETFs) and certain exchange-traded options from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, is able to access, as needed, trade information for certain cash equivalents held by the Fund reported to FINRA's TRACE.
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information is publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. The website for the Fund includes a form of the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Rule 7.12-E have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which trading in the Shares of the Fund may be halted. In addition, as noted above, investors have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the PIV, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The Exchange believes that while the Fund is able to invest 20% of the assets in the Fund's portfolio in OTC derivatives pursuant to Commentary .01(e) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E, it is appropriate to apply a limit of up to 60% of the Fund's assets to the Fund's investments in OTC total return swaps on U.S. and foreign exchange-listed equity securities (calculated as the aggregate gross notional value of such OTC derivatives) that are used for equity investment exposure purposes, as described above. While the Fund will not invest directly in or hold ownership in any companies that engage in cannabis-related business unless permitted by national and local laws of the relevant jurisdiction, including U.S. federal and state laws, the Adviser believes that it is in the best interests of the Fund's shareholders for the Fund to gain increased exposure to certain equity securities that have economic characteristics similar to securities listed in the principal strategies. The proposed exception would allow the Fund to gain increased exposure, through the use of total return swaps, to certain equity securities that the Fund may not be able to invest in or choose not to invest in directly, in furtherance of the Fund's investment objective. All Fund investments, including derivative instruments (
In addition, the Fund's investments in OTC derivatives used to gain increased exposure in furtherance of the Fund's investment objective, will be limited to 60% of the assets in the Fund's portfolio, calculated as the aggregate gross notional value of such OTC derivatives. While certain derivatives can be traded on exchanges, total return swaps (which can be customized) are only available for trading on the OTC market. Accordingly, the Adviser believes that OTC derivatives may frequently be a more efficient investment vehicle than listed derivatives. Therefore, the Exchange believes that increasing the percentage limit in Commentary .01(e), as described above, applicable to the Fund's investments in OTC total return swaps on U.S. and foreign exchange-listed equity securities would permit the Fund to satisfy its investment objective and
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will permit the listing and trading of an actively-managed exchange-traded product that, through permitted use of an increased level of OTC derivatives above that currently permitted by the generic listing requirements of Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E, will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange believes that it is appropriate and in the public interest to allow the Fund to exceed the 20% limit in Commentary .01(e) to Rule 8.600-E of portfolio assets that may be invested in OTC derivatives. Under Commentary .01(e), a series of Managed Fund Shares listed under the “generic” standards may invest up to 20% of its assets (calculated as the aggregate gross notional value) in OTC derivatives. Because the Fund, in furtherance of its investment objective, may invest a substantial percentage of its investments in OTC total return swaps on U.S. and foreign exchange-listed equity securities, the 20% limit in Commentary .01(e) to Rule 8.600-E could result in the Fund being unable to fully pursue its investment objective while attempting to sufficiently mitigate investment risks. The inability of the Fund to adequately increase its exposure would effectively limit the Fund's ability to invest in certain instruments, or could expose the Fund to additional investment risk.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will permit the listing and trading of an issue of Managed Fund Shares that, through permitted use of an increased level of OTC derivatives above that currently permitted by the generic listing requirements of Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Tennessee Dated 12/17/2019.
Issued on 12/17/2019.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 16222 8 and for economic injury is 16223 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi.
The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy will hold a public meeting from 10:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m., Thursday, January 23, 2020, at the U.S. Capital Visitor Center in Room SVC 203-02 (First St NE, Washington, DC 20515). The focus of the meeting will be the presentation of the
This meeting is open to the public, including the media and members and staff of governmental and non-governmental organizations. Any requests for a reasonable accommodation should be sent by email to Kristy Zamary at
The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy appraises U.S. government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics. The Advisory Commission may conduct studies, inquiries, and meetings, as it deems necessary. It may assemble and disseminate information and issue reports and other publications, subject to the approval of the Chairperson, in consultation with the Executive Director. The Advisory Commission may undertake foreign travel in pursuit of its studies and coordinate, sponsor, or oversee projects, studies, events, or other activities that it deems desirable and necessary in fulfilling its functions.
For more information on the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, please visit
The Secretary of State's designation of “countries of particular concern” and “special watch list” countries for religious freedom violations pursuant to Section 408(a) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-292), as amended (the Act), notice is hereby given that, on December 18, 2019, the Secretary of State, under authority delegated by the President, has designated each of the following as a “country of particular concern” (CPC) under section 402(b) of the Act, for having engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. The Secretary simultaneously designated the following Presidential Actions for these CPCs:
For Burma, the existing ongoing restrictions referenced in 22 CFR 126.1, pursuant to section 402(c)(5) of the Act;
For China, the existing ongoing restriction on exports to China of crime control or detection instruments or equipment, under the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Pub. L. 101-246), pursuant to section 402(c)(5) of the Act;
For Eritrea, the existing ongoing restrictions referenced in 22 CFR 126.1, pursuant to section 402(c)(5) of the Act;
For Iran, the existing ongoing travel restrictions in section 221(c) of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (TRA) for individuals identified under section 221(a)(1)(C) of the TRA in connection with the commission of serious human rights abuses, pursuant to section 402(c)(5) of the Act;
For the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the existing ongoing restrictions to which the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is subject, pursuant to sections 402 and 409 of the Trade Act of 1974 (the Jackson-Vanik Amendment), and pursuant to section 402(c)(5) of the Act;
For Pakistan, a waiver as required in the “important national interest of the United States,” pursuant to section 407 of the Act;
For Saudi Arabia, a waiver as required in the “important national interest of the United States,” pursuant to section 407 of the Act;
For Tajikistan, a waiver as required in the “important national interest of the United States,” pursuant to section 407 of the Act; and
For Turkmenistan, a waiver as required in the “important national interest of the United States,” pursuant to section 407 of the Act.
In addition, the Secretary of State has designated the following countries as “special watch list” countries for engaging in or tolerating severe violations of religious freedom: Comoros, Cuba, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Russia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan.
The Secretary of State's designation of “entities of particular concern” for religious freedom violations. Pursuant to Section 408(a) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (Pub. L.
Howard Chyung, Office of International Religious Freedom, U.S. Department of State, (Phone: (202) 647-3865 or Email:
CCET, LLC d/b/a Cincinnati Eastern Railroad (CCET), a Class III railroad, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to continue its lease of, and its provision of railroad common carrier service over, approximately 69.45 route miles of railroad owned by Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR), from milepost CT 9.0 at Clare, Ohio, at its west end, to milepost CT 78.45 at Mineral Springs, Ohio (the Line).
CCET states that it and NSR are parties to an agreement under which CCET has acquired a leasehold interest in, and operates, the Line, segments of which were leased to CCET in sequence beginning in 2014.
According to CCET, the amended lease agreement between CCET and NSR does not contain any provision that prohibits, restricts, or otherwise limits, interchange of traffic with any third-party carrier.
CCET certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of the proposed transaction will not exceed $5 million and that the transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class I rail carrier.
This transaction may be consummated on or after January 9, 2020, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than January 2, 2020 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36370, 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 CCET's representative, Robert A. Wimbish, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60606-3208.
According to CCET, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic preservation reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Winchester & Western Railroad Co. (W&W) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 subpart F—
W&W has certified that: (1) No local common carrier freight traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) no overhead traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years and, therefore, there is no need to reroute any traffic; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of a complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies), and 49 CFR 1105.7 and 1105.8 (environmental and historic report), have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received,
A copy of any petition filed with Board should be sent to W&W's representative, Edward D. Greenberg, GKG Law, P.C., The Foundry Building, 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20007.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
W&W has filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the potential effects of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), W&W shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line. If consummation has not been effected by W&W's filing a notice of consummation by December 26, 2020, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
On December 6, 2019, Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) filed with the Surface Transportation Board a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to abandon an approximately 2.29-mile rail line, previously known as the Fourth Street Industrial Track, extending from milepost GI 0.0 to milepost GI 2.29 in the City of Fort Wayne, Allen County, Ind. (the Line). The Line traverses U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes 46805 and 46808. NSR states that the Line previously included the station of Fourth Street.
NSR states that it is seeking to abandon the Line because it has been dormant for nearly two decades. (NSR Pet. 11.) On October 23, 2019, the Board rejected a verified notice of exemption filed by NSR to abandon the Line, finding that the class exemption procedure was inappropriate given the factual and legal questions raised by the verified notice of exemption, including questions regarding the Line's classification.
According to NSR, the Line does not contain any federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in NSR's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it.
The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in
By issuing 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 25, 2020.
Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) for continued rail service 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 January 6, 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 trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than January 15, 2020.
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. AB 290 (Sub-No. 406X), 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 NSR's representatives, William A. Mullins and Crystal M. Zorbaugh, Baker & Miller PLLC, 2401 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20037. Replies to the petition are due on or before January 15, 2020.
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 1-800-877-8339.
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.
Surface Transportation Board.
Approval of rail cost adjustment factor.
The Board has approved the first quarter 2020 Rail Cost Adjustment Factor (RCAF) and cost index filed by the Association of American Railroads. The first quarter 2020 RCAF (Unadjusted) is 1.043. The first quarter 2020 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.440. The first quarter 2020 RCAF-5 is 0.414.
Pedro Ramirez, (202) 245-0333. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Additional information is contained in the Board's decision, which is available on our website,
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Fuchs, and Oberman.
Notice of meeting.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Park Service (NPS), in accordance with the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000, announce the next meeting of the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group (NPOAG). This notification provides the date, location, and agenda for the meeting.
Keith Lusk, AWP-1SP, Special Programs Staff, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region Headquarters, 777 South Aviation Boulevard, Suite 150, El Segundo, CA 92045, telephone: (424) 405-7017, email:
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (NPATMA), enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106-181, required the establishment of the NPOAG within one year after its enactment. The Act requires that the NPOAG be a balanced group of representatives of general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and Native American tribes. The Administrator of the FAA and the Director of NPS (or their designees) serve as ex officio members of the group. Representatives of the Administrator and Director serve alternating 1-year terms as chairperson of the advisory group.
The duties of the NPOAG include providing advice, information, and recommendations to the FAA Administrator and the NPS Director on; implementation of Public Law 106-181; quiet aircraft technology; other measures that might accommodate interests to visitors of national parks; and at the request of the Administrator and the Director, on safety, environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour operations over national parks or tribal lands.
The agenda for the meeting will include, but is not limited to, an update on ongoing park specific air tour planning projects and commercial air tour reporting.
Although this is not a public meeting, interested persons may attend. Because seating is limited, if you plan to attend please contact the person listed under
If you cannot attend the NPOAG meeting, a summary record of the meeting will be made available under the NPOAG section of the FAA ATMP website at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. This collection involves the pilot/applicant's name, home address which is provided by the applicant, and his/her FAA certificate number. In most cases, the certificate number is one that has been assigned by Airmen Certification. The information collected is imperative to be able to identify the airman in order to process the required background check for the potential hiring air carrier employer.
Written comments should be submitted by February 24, 2020.
Please send written comments:
Christopher Morris by email at:
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments on our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information to be collected will be used by MARAD personnel to process and verify requests for service awards. We are required to publish this notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before February 24, 2020.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. MARAD-2019-0205] through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Deveeda Midgette, 202-366-2354, Office of Sealift Support, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Comments must be submitted on or before January 27, 2020.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.
William McDonald, 202-366-0688, Office of Sealift Support, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Email:
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before January 27, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2019-0202 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel C-WEED is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2019-0202 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before January 27, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2019-0201 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel ADAGIO is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2019-0201 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before January 27, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2019-0204 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel GYPSY GIRL is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2019-0204
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled ADDRESSES. Be advised that it may take a few hours or even days for your comment to be reflected on the docket. In addition, your comments must be written in English. We encourage you to provide concise comments and you may attach additional documents as necessary. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before January 27, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2019-0200 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel LOKAHI is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2019-0200 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before January 27, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2019-0197 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel PALADIN is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2019-0197 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before January 27, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2019-0198 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel PERSUADER TOO is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2019-0198 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Legislation and Regulations, MAR-225, W24-220, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter setting forth with specificity the basis for any such claim and, if possible, a summary of your submission that can be made available to the public.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirements of the coastwise trade laws to allow the carriage of no more than twelve passengers for hire on vessels, which are three years old or more. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before January 27, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2019-0199 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel LADY SUSAN is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD-2019-0199 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Lithium Battery Safety Advisory Committee.
The meeting will be held on January 22-23, 2020, from 9:00 to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Requests to attend the meeting must be received by January 8, 2020. Requests for accommodations for a disability must be received by January 8, 2020. Persons requesting to speak during the meeting must submit a written copy of their remarks to DOT by January 8, 2020. Requests to submit written materials to be reviewed during the meeting must be received no later than January 8, 2020.
The meeting will be held at DOT Headquarters, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. The meeting will also be webcast. Information for accessing the webcast will be posted on Committee website. The Lithium Battery Safety Advisory Committee website is located at:
Aaron Wiener or Kevin Leary, PHMSA, U.S. Department of Transportation. Telephone: (202) 366-8553. Fax: (202) 366-3753. Email:
The Lithium Battery Safety Advisory Committee was created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA, Pub. L. 92-463), in accordance with Section 333(d) of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254).
At the meeting, the agenda will cover the following topics as specifically outlined in section 333(d) of Public Law 115-254:
(a) Facilitate communication amongst manufactures of lithium batteries and products containing lithium batteries, air carriers, and the Federal government.
(b) Discuss the effectiveness, and the economic and social impacts of lithium battery transportation regulations.
(c) Provide the Secretary with information regarding new technologies and transportation safety practices.
(d) Provide a forum to discuss Departmental activities related to lithium battery transportation safety.
(e) Advise and recommend activities to improve the global enforcement of air transportation of lithium batteries, and the effectiveness of those regulations.
(f) Provide a forum for feedback on potential U.S. positions to be taken at international forums.
(g) Guide activities to increase awareness of relevant requirements.
(h) Review methods to decrease the risk posed by undeclared hazardous materials.
A final agenda will be posted on the Lithium Battery Safety Advisory Committee website at least one week in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be open to the public on a first-come, first served basis, as space is limited. Members of the public who wish to attend in person must RSVP to the person listed in the
There will be five (5) minutes allotted for oral comments from members of the public joining the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for each commenter may be limited. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must submit a request at the time of registration, as well as the name, address, and organizational affiliation of the proposed speaker. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, PHMSA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to submit a written copy of their prepared remarks for inclusion in the meeting records and for circulation to Lithium Battery Safety Advisory Committee members. All prepared remarks submitted on time will be accepted and considered as part of the record. Any member of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.
Copies of the meeting minutes, and committee presentations will be available on the Lithium Battery Safety Advisory Committee website. Presentations will also be posted on the E-Gov website in docket number PHMSA [PHMSA-2019-0098], within 30 days following the meeting.
2.
3.
If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your written comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the following statement: “Comments on [PHMSA-2019-0098]”. The docket clerk will date stamp the postcard prior to returning it to you via the U.S. mail.
DOT may solicit comments from the public regarding certain general notices. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to the E-Gov website, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS).
The U.S. Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Currently, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), U.S. Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments concerning the New Markets Tax Credit Program (NMTC Program) Community Development Entity (CDE) Certification Application.
Written comments must be received on or before February 24, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
Submit your comments via email to Tanya McInnis, Certification, Compliance Monitoring and Evaluation (CCME) Program Manager, CDFI Fund, at
Tanya McInnis, CCME Program Manager, CDFI Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220 or by facsimile to (202) 653-0375 (not a toll free number). Other information regarding the CDFI Fund and its programs may be obtained through the CDFI Fund's website at
26 U.S.C. 45D; 31 U.S.C. 321; 26 CFR 1.45D-1.
Notice and Request for Public Comment.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), U.S. Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments concerning the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) Program Allocation and Qualified Equity Investment Tracking System (AQEI).
Written comments must be received on or before February 24, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
Submit your comments via email to Tanya McInnis, Certification, Compliance Monitoring and Evaluation (CCME) Program Manager, CDFI Fund, at
Tanya McInnis, CCME Program Manager, CDFI Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220 or by facsimile to (202) 653-0375 (not a toll free number). Other information regarding the CDFI Fund and its programs may be obtained through the CDFI Fund's website at
12 U.S.C. 4701
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of persons whose property and interests in property have been unblocked and who have been removed from the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons. Additionally, OFAC is publishing an update to the identifying information of a person currently included in the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On December 19, 2019, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are unblocked, and they have been removed from the SDN List under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. HERNANDEZ ORTEGA, Cesar Alejandro, c/o LIZZY MUNDO
2. ZARATE MORENO, Rutdy Alirio (a.k.a. “RUNCHO”), c/o IMPORTACIONES Y EXPORTACIONES ZAFIRO S.L., Madrid, Spain; Calle 68 No. 60-10, Bogota, Colombia; DOB 19 Mar 1968; Cedula No. 80368114 (Colombia); Matricula Mercantil No 513926 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
3. ESPITIA ORTIZ, Mauricio Arturo (a.k.a. SPITIA, Mauricio), c/o ESVA S.C.S., Cali, Colombia; c/o M S CONSTRUCTORES LTDA., Cali, Colombia; c/o SPITIA VALENCIA LTDA., Cali, Colombia; c/o ARQUITECTOS UNIDOS LTDA., Cali, Colombia; Carrera 25 F No. 7-15 Oeste, Cali, Colombia; Carrera 42 No. 8-36, Cali, Colombia; Spain; c/o GRUPO INVERSOR PRINCIPE DE VERGARA S.L., Madrid, Spain; Calle Ayala 64 3 Iz., Madrid 28001, Spain; DOB 29 Dec 1959; POB Barranquilla, Colombia; Cedula No. 16634827 (Colombia); Passport AJ424421 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
4. GRAJALES POSSO, Maria Nancy, c/o CASA GRAJALES S.A., La Union, Valle, Colombia; c/o FREXCO S.A., La Union, Valle, Colombia; c/o GRAJALES S.A., La Union, Valle, Colombia; c/o INVERSIONES LOS POSSO LTDA. S.C.S., La Union, Valle, Colombia; c/o PLAZA REAL LTDA., Cali, Colombia; Cedula No. 29613013 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
5. GALLEGO VALENCIA, John Jairo (a.k.a. “DON JOTA”; a.k.a. “FREDERICO”), c/o LAVADERO EL CASTILLO, Medellin, Colombia; c/o COMERCIALIZADORA DE CAPITALES LIMITADA, Medellin, Colombia; c/o TECNICAR DIAGNOSTICENTRO S.A., Envigado, Colombia; DOB 30 Jul 1950; POB Medellin, Colombia; Cedula No. 70126377 (Colombia); Passport AC312064 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
6. ROSALES DIAZ, Hector Emilio, c/o CONCRETOS CALI S.A., Cali, Colombia; c/o INVERSIONES GEMINIS S.A., Cali, Colombia; c/o ADMINISTRACION INMOBILIARIA BOLIVAR S.A., Cali, Colombia; c/o INVERSIONES VILLA PAZ S.A., Cali, Colombia; c/o INVERSIONES EL PENON S.A., Cali, Colombia; c/o INDUSTRIA AVICOLA PALMASECA S.A., Cali, Colombia; c/o CONSTRUCTORA DIMISA LTDA., Cali, Colombia; c/o MERCAVICOLA LTDA., Cali, Colombia; c/o COMPANIA ADMINISTRADORA DE VIVIENDA S.A., Cali, Colombia; DOB 01 Apr 1955; Cedula No. 16588924 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
7. MOSQUERA PEREZ, Victor Alfonso (a.k.a. “NEGRO MOSQUERA”), Colombia; DOB 14 Sep 1984; POB Turbo, Antioquia, Colombia; citizen Colombia; Cedula No. 8358401 (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: LOS URABENOS).
8. PLATA MCNULTY, Jorge Alberto; DOB 01 Jun 1968; POB Panama; citizen Panama; Cedula No. 8-294-311 (Panama); Passport 1412335 (Panama) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: EUROCAMBIO INVESTMENT S.A.; Linked To: THEA HOLDING & CO., INC.; Linked To: EURO FINANCING, CORP.; Linked To: GCH & SONS CO., INC.; Linked To: BEAUTY STATION, S.A.; Linked To: INVERSIONES TROL PANAMA S.A.; Linked To: INVERSIONES OMEGA INTERNACIONAL S.A.; Linked To: INMOBILIARIA DAVITOV S.A.; Linked To: BERLIN INDUSTRIES, CORP.).
9. PEREZ FABREGA, Margarita Ines; DOB 14 Aug 1976; POB Panama; citizen Panama; Cedula No. 9-700-1662 (Panama); Passport 1412336 (Panama) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: EUROCAMBIO INVESTMENT S.A.; Linked To: GCH & SONS CO., INC.; Linked To: THEA HOLDING & CO., INC.; Linked To: BEAUTY STATION, S.A.; Linked To: BERLIN INDUSTRIES, CORP.; Linked To: INVERSIONES TROL PANAMA S.A.; Linked To: INVERSIONES OMEGA INTERNACIONAL S.A.).
10. CHEAITELLI SAHELI, Guiseppe Ali; DOB 10 Feb 1966; POB Maicao, La Guajira, Colombia; Cedula No. 84046545 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: THEA HOLDING & CO., INC.; Linked To: C M F INTERNACIONAL, INC.; Linked To: GCH & SONS CO., INC.; Linked To: POLYTON (ASIA) LIMITED).
11. LIBIEN TELLA, Naim, Paseo San Carlos 319, Fracc. San Carlos, Metepec, Mexico 52140, Mexico; Vicente Guerrero 304, Toluca, Mexico 50110, Mexico; Paseo Tollocan 613 Oriente, Colonia Valle Verde, Toluca, Mexico, Mexico; DOB 30 May 1970; POB Toluca, Mexico, Mexico; R.F.C. LITN-700530-6N0 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. LITN700530HMCBLM01 (Mexico); I.F.E. LBTLNM70053015000 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: AEROLINEAS AMANECER, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: DIARIO AMANECER; Linked To: UNOMASUNO; Linked To: VALGO GRUPO DE INVERSION S.A. DE C.V.).
12. BERMUDEZ DURAN, Felipe, Camino a San Mateo 41 Edif. Mackenzie—1003, Lomas Verdes, Naucalpan, Estado de Mexico C.P. 53020, Mexico; Puerto de Palo No. 128, Col. Residencial Colon, Toluca, Estado de Mexico C.P. 50120, Mexico; DOB 03 Jul 1988; R.F.C. BEDF880703 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. BEDF880703HDFRRL09 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNT].
13. GALLON HENAO, Pedro David; DOB 12 Aug 1970; POB Medellin, Colombia; Cedula No. 98551360 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
1. NAVIERA MARITIMA DE AROSA, S.A., Paseo de Pereda 36, Apartado 141, Santander 39004, Spain [CUBA].
2. IMPORTACIONES Y EXPORTACIONES ZAFIRO S.L., Calle Gran Via, 31, Madrid 28013, Spain; C.I.F. B83065458 (Spain) [SDNTK].
3. ARQUITECTOS UNIDOS LTDA., Calle 22N No. 5A-75, Cali, Colombia; NIT # 805022512-4 (Colombia) [SDNT].
4. ESVA S.C.S. (a.k.a. FLEXX GYM), Carrera 42 No. 8-36, Cali, Colombia; NIT # 805019977-4 (Colombia) [SDNT].
5. GRUPO INVERSOR PRINCIPE DE VERGARA S.L., Calle Jarilla, 5—Pis 4 B, Madrid 28043, Spain; C.I.F. B84758374 (Spain) [SDNT].
6. M S CONSTRUCTORES LTDA., Calle 22N No. 5AN-75, Cali, Colombia; NIT # 800206430-1 (Colombia) [SDNT].
7. SPITIA VALENCIA LTDA., Calle 9 No. 44-59, Cali, Colombia; NIT # 805006598-1 (Colombia) [SDNT].
8. PLAZA REAL LTDA., Avenida 4 Oeste No. 6-103, Cali, Colombia; NIT # 890331686-1 (Colombia) [SDNT].
9. COMERCIALIZADORA DE CAPITALES LIMITADA, Carrera 48C No. 15 Sur-68, Medellin, Colombia; Carrera 43C No. 70-73, Piso 2, Medellin, Colombia; NIT # 811032525-4 (Colombia) [SDNT].
10. TECNICAR DIAGNOSTICENTRO S.A. (f.k.a. TECNICAR DIAGNOSTICENTRO E.U.), Carrera 48 No. 25AA Sur-13 Barrio Las Vegas, Envigado, Colombia; NIT # 811046795-7 (Colombia) [SDNT].
11. DE EXPOMINERIA S.A.S. (a.k.a. DE EXPOMINERIA S.A.), Calle 40, 81 a 15, Medellin, Colombia; NIT # 900328871-2 (Colombia) [SDNTK].
12. JOYERIA MVK, Calle 100 # 10-29, Turbo, Antioquia, Colombia; NIT # 8358401-7 (Colombia) [SDNTK].
13. C M F INTERNACIONAL, INC., Panama; RUC # 669832-1-462619 (Panama) [SDNTK].
14. GCH & SONS CO., INC. (a.k.a. GCH AND SONS CO. INC.), Panama City, Panama; RUC # 1164157-1-574556 (Panama) [SDNTK].
15. POLYTON (ASIA) LIMITED, 20-F China Overseas Building, 139 Hennesy
16. THEA HOLDING & CO., INC. (a.k.a. THEA HOLDING AND CO., INC.), Panama; RUC # 1166577-1-575203 (Panama) [SDNTK].
17. AEROLINEAS AMANECER, S.A. DE C.V. (a.k.a. AEROAMANECER), Hangar 6 Zona C., Aviacion Gral. S/N, Toluca, Mexico 50200, Mexico; Paseo Tollocan 802 Poniente, Toluca de Lerdo, Estado de Mexico 50000, Mexico; Folio Mercantil No. 3613-17 (Mexico) [SDNTK].
18. DIARIO AMANECER, Paseo Tollocan 613 Ote., Col. Valle Verde, Toluca, Estado de Mexico C.P. 50130, Mexico; Gabino Barreda No. 86, Col. San Rafael, Del. Cuauhtemoc, Mexico, Distrito Federal C.P. 06470, Mexico; website
19. UNOMASUNO (a.k.a. UNO MAS UNO), Gabino Barreda No. 86, Col. San Rafael, Del. Cuauhtemoc, Mexico, Distrito Federal C.P. 06470, Mexico; website
20. GRUPO MPV, Km 14.1 Carretera El Salvador, Centro Comercial Paseo San Sebastian Local 92, Guatemala City, Guatemala; Registration ID 55544 (Guatemala) [SDNTK].
Additionally, on December 19, 2019, OFAC updated the SDN List for the following person, whose property and interests in property continue to be blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
MARTINEZ LASSO, Vielka Judith; DOB 09 Nov 1967; POB El Higo, San Carlos, Panama; Cedula No. 8-283-646 (Panama) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: THEA HOLDING & CO., INC.; Linked To: INVERSIONES OMEGA INTERNACIONAL S.A.; Linked To: GCH & SONS CO., INC.; Linked To: EURO FINANCING, CORP.; Linked To: EUROCAMBIO INVESTMENT S.A.; Linked To: INVERSIONES TROL PANAMA S.A.; Linked To: EUROCAMBIO, S.A.; Linked To: BEAUTY STATION, S.A.).
MARTINEZ LASSO, Vielka Judith; DOB 09 Nov 1967; POB El Higo, San Carlos, Panama; Cedula No. 8-283-646 (Panama) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: INVERSIONES OMEGA INTERNACIONAL S.A.; Linked To: EURO FINANCING, CORP.; Linked To: EUROCAMBIO INVESTMENT S.A.; Linked To: INVERSIONES TROL PANAMA S.A.; Linked To: EUROCAMBIO, S.A.; Linked To: BEAUTY STATION, S.A.).
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On December 19, 2019, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. CRUZ OVALLE, Juan Carlos (a.k.a. “EL HIELERO”), 5 Calle, 1-35, Zona 1, Tecun Uman, Ayutla, San Marcos, Guatemala; DOB 11 Sep 1975; alt. DOB 06 Nov 1975; POB Puerto Barrios, Izabal, Guatemala; nationality Guatemala; Gender Male; Cedula No. L-1225277 (Guatemala); NIT #844191K (Guatemala); C.U.I. 1678215981801 (Guatemala) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: JC CAR AUDIO; Linked To: STAR MARKET MELANYE). Designated pursuant to section 805(b)(2) of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (“Kingpin Act”), 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(2), for materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of Erik Salvador SUNIGA RODRIGUEZ, a foreign person identified as a significant foreign narcotics trafficker pursuant to the Kingpin Act.
2. JUI ESCOBAR, Wildin Tulio (Latin: JUÍ ESCOBAR, Wildin Tulio), 6 Calle 5-181, Tecun Uman Zona 2, Ayutla, San Marcos, Guatemala; Kilometro 252 y medio, Tecun Uman, San Marcos, Guatemala; DOB 03 Nov 1968; POB Coatepeque, Quetzaltenango, Guatemala; nationality Guatemala; Gender Male; Cedula No. L-1220608 (Guatemala); Passport 00020608K (Guatemala); NIT #7690495 (Guatemala); Driver's License No. 1112170002060K (Guatemala); C.U.I. 2891761150920 (Guatemala) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: MULTISERVICIOS Y FINCA EL ENCANTO). Designated pursuant to section 805(b)(2) of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (“Kingpin Act”), 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(2), for materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of Erik Salvador SUNIGA RODRIGUEZ, a foreign person identified as a significant foreign narcotics trafficker pursuant to the Kingpin Act.
3. PARADA RODRIGUEZ, Alex Oswaldo (Latin: PARADA RODRÍGUEZ, Alex Oswaldo) (a.k.a. “LA PANTERA”), 1 Calle 2 Ave. 1-15, Zona 1, Tecun Uman, Ayutla, San Marcos, Guatemala; DOB 15 Aug 1969; POB Tiquisate, Escuintla, Guatemala; nationality Guatemala; Gender Male; Cedula No. L-1220627 (Guatemala); NIT #66865883 (Guatemala); C.U.I. 1916038210506 (Guatemala) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: SUNIGA RODRIGUEZ DRUG TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATION; Linked To: CEVICHERIA LA CONCHA). Designated pursuant to section 805(b)(2) of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (“Kingpin Act”), 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(2), for materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking
4. SUNIGA RODRIGUEZ, Erik Salvador (Latin: SUÑIGA RODRÍGUEZ, Erik Salvador) (a.k.a. ZUNIGA RODRIGUEZ, Erick Salvador (Latin: ZÚÑIGA RODRÍGUEZ, Erick Salvador); a.k.a. “EL POCHO”), Caserio Las Delicias, Ayutla, San Marcos, Guatemala; DOB 19 Nov 1975; POB La Nueva Concepcion, Escuintla, Guatemala; nationality Guatemala; Gender Male; Cedula No. L1225520 (Guatemala); Passport 199573956 (Guatemala); NIT #7174713 (Guatemala); Driver's License No. 1995739560513 (Guatemala); C.U.I. 1995739560513 (Guatemala) (individual) [SDNTK]. Identified as a significant foreign narcotics trafficker pursuant to section 805(b)(1) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(1).
5. SUNIGA RODRIGUEZ, Jose Juan (Latin: SUÑIGA RODRÍGUEZ, Jose Juan), 1 Avenida 1-51, zona 1, Ayutla, San Marcos, Guatemala; DOB 17 Dec 1972; POB Guatemala City, Guatemala, Guatemala; nationality Guatemala; Gender Male; Cedula No. L-1227200 (Guatemala); Passport 164629459 (Guatemala); NIT #1198063K (Guatemala); C.U.I. 1646294590101 (Guatemala) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: RANCHO LA DORADA). Designation Act (“Kingpin Act”), 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(2), for materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of Erik Salvador SUNIGA RODRIGUEZ, a foreign person identified as a significant foreign narcotics trafficker pursuant to the Kingpin Act.
1. CEVICHERIA LA CONCHA, Aldea Sanjon San Lorenzo, Tecun Uman, Ayutla, San Marcos, Guatemala; NIT #6686588-3 (Guatemala) [SDNTK]. Designated pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3), for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, Alex Oswaldo PARADA RODRIGUEZ, a foreign person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act.
2. JC CAR AUDIO, 05 Calle, Zona 1, Tecun Uman, San Marcos, Guatemala; NIT #844191-K (Guatemala) [SDNTK]. Designated pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3), for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, Juan Carlos CRUZ OVALLE, a foreign person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act.
3. MULTISERVICIOS Y FINCA EL ENCANTO, Kilometro 252 y medio, Tecun Uman, San Marcos, Guatemala; NIT #769049-5 (Guatemala); Trade License No. 333575-429-295 (Guatemala) [SDNTK]. Designated pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3), for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, Wildin Tulio JUI ESCOBAR, a foreign person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act.
4. RANCHO LA DORADA, 2o Callejon, Caserio las Delicias, Ayutla, San Marcos, Guatemala; NIT #1198063-K (Guatemala) [SDNTK]. Designated pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3), for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a Jose Juan SUNIGA RODRIGUEZ, foreign person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act.
5. STAR MARKET MELANYE, 3A. Avenida 2-10 Zona 1, Tecun Uman, Ayutla, San Marcos, Guatemala; NIT #844191-K (Guatemala) [SDNTK]. Designated pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3), for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a Juan Carlos CRUZ OVALLE, foreign person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act.
6. SUNIGA RODRIGUEZ DRUG TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATION (Latin: SUÑIGA RODRIGUEZ DRUG TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATION) (a.k.a. “LOS POCHOS DTO”), Ayutla, San Marcos, Guatemala [SDNTK]. Identified as a significant foreign narcotics trafficker pursuant to section 805(b)(1) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(1).
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning the requirements relating to the relief and procedures for spouses of U.S. servicemembers who are working in or claiming residence or domicile in a U.S. territory.
Written comments should be received on or before February 24, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Philippe Thomas, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Federal Advisory Committee Act that the subcommittees of the Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development and Clinical Science Research and Development Services Scientific Merit Review Board (JBL/CS SMRB) will be held on the dates below from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (unless otherwise listed) at the 20 F Conference Center, 20 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, the Phoenix Park Hotel, 520 North Capital Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, and at the Office of Research and Development, 1100 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002:
The purpose of the subcommittees is to provide advice on the scientific quality, budget, safety and mission relevance of investigator-initiated research proposals submitted for VA merit review evaluation. Proposals submitted for review include various medical specialties within the general areas of biomedical, behavioral and clinical science research.
The subcommittee meetings will be closed to the public for the review, discussion, and evaluation of initial and renewal research proposals. However, the JBL/CS SMRB teleconference meeting will be open to the public. Members of the public who wish to attend the open JBL/CS SMRB
These subcommittee meetings will be closed to the public for the review, discussion, and evaluation of initial and renewal research proposals, which involve reference to staff and consultant critiques of research proposals. Discussions will deal with scientific merit of each proposal and qualifications of personnel conducting the studies, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Additionally, premature disclosure of research information could significantly obstruct implementation of proposed agency action regarding the research proposals. As provided by subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended by Public Law 94-409, closing the subcommittee meetings is in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (9)(B).
Those who would like to obtain a copy of the minutes from the closed subcommittee meetings and rosters of the subcommittee members should contact Holly Krull, Ph.D., Manager, Merit Review Program (10X2B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 632-8522 or email at
This Fall 2019 Regulatory Plan continues to reflect a fundamental shift of the Regulatory state. Starting with confidence in private markets and individual choices, this Administration is reassessing existing regulatory burdens. This year marks year three in the Administration's efforts under Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (January 30, 2017) to continue to lower the burden of regulation on the American people. This Administration also approaches the imposition of new regulatory requirements with care to ensure that regulations are consistent with law, understandable to the public and not hidden in indecipherable text or implementing guidance, correct a substantial market failure, and are net beneficial to the public. Furthermore, the Plan, along with the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (“Agenda”), identifies the Administration's priorities in a manner that continues to be transparent and accessible to the public.
The 2019 Plan both sets a new direction in regulatory policy and preserves many longstanding regulatory best practices. Stressing that, where statutorily permitted, “it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations,” in E.O. 13771 President Trump directed all Federal agencies to issue two deregulatory actions for each new regulation implemented and to reduce net new regulatory costs to zero. He also created regulatory reform officers and regulatory reform taskforces in each agency in E.O. 13777 “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” (February 24, 2017). Within the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) implements Federal regulatory policy and has led efforts to implement these presidential directives, working with agencies to identify deregulatory actions and eliminate regulatory burdens.
This Administration continues to work to make sure that the public is adequately informed about upcoming regulatory activity. Through the past few agenda cycles, OIRA has emphasized to the agencies that the Agenda and Plan should only contain items the Agencies truly believe are going to be pursued in the near future. For too long, the Agenda has contained old actions that agencies are not actively pursuing.
This Administration has also taken steps to make sure that agencies uphold the law governing the quality of the data and evidence they use to justify their policy and program choices. In a recent Memorandum, OMB reminded agencies that they must ensure that information that is likely to have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or important private sector decisions is communicated transparently, clearly articulates the underlying assumptions and uncertainties, and prioritizes increased access to the data and models underlying such information.
In addition, this Administration has taken several significant steps to make sure that regulation is not created through other means, and that both the public and Congress have adequate notice of agency intentions. Recently, the President signed Executive Order 13891 titled “Promoting the Rule of Law through Improved Agency Guidance.” This E.O. emphasizes that Americans deserve an open and fair regulatory process that imposes new obligations on the public only when consistent with applicable law and after an agency follows appropriate procedures. The E.O. makes it the policy of the executive branch to require that agencies treat guidance documents as non-binding both in law and in practice, take public input into account when appropriate in formulating guidance documents, and make guidance documents readily available to the public. On April 11, 2019, OMB also issued Memorandum M-19-14, “Guidance on Compliance with the Congressional Review Act.” Memorandum M-19-14 updates existing OMB guidance to agencies with regard to both OIRA and agency responsibilities under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) by (1) clarifying that guidance documents fall within the definition of “rule” under the CRA and (2) making the process by which OIRA makes “major determinations” more consistent and thorough, including through the receipt of adequate agency analysis on whether a rule is major.
The agency plans herein discussed push against the inertia of steadily expanding regulatory burdens and represent this Administration's commitment to reducing regulations that no longer benefit our society. The plans also send a clear message that the public can invest and plan for the future without the looming threat of being surprised by burdensome and unnecessary new regulations. OIRA looks forward to working with the agencies and all interested stakeholders to deliver meaningful regulatory reform to the American people.
Regulatory Information Service Center.
Introduction to the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
Publication of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions and the Regulatory Plan represent key components of the regulatory planning mechanism prescribed in Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” January 30, 2017, and Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” February 24, 2017. The fall editions of the Unified Agenda include the agency regulatory plans required by E.O. 12866, which identify regulatory priorities and provide additional detail about the most important significant regulatory actions that agencies expect to take in the coming year.
In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies publish semiannual “regulatory flexibility agendas” describing regulatory actions they are developing that will have significant effects on small businesses and other small entities (5 U.S.C. 602).
The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda), published in the fall and spring, helps agencies fulfill all of these requirements. All federal regulatory agencies have chosen to publish their regulatory agendas as part of this publication. The complete Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan can be found online at
The fall 2019 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
The complete fall 2019 Unified Agenda contains the Regulatory Plans of 28 Federal agencies and 66 Federal agency regulatory agendas.
Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, 2219F, Washington, DC 20405.
For further information about specific regulatory actions, please refer to the agency contact listed for each entry.
To provide comment on or to obtain further information about this publication, contact: John C. Thomas, Executive Director, Regulatory Information Service Center (MR), U.S. General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 482-7340. You may also send comments to us by email at:
The fall 2019 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
The following agencies have no entries for inclusion in the printed regulatory flexibility agenda. An asterisk (*) indicates agencies that appear in The Regulatory Plan. The regulatory agendas of these agencies are available to the public at
The Regulatory Information Service Center compiles the Unified Agenda for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), part of the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA is responsible for overseeing the Federal Government's regulatory, paperwork, and information resource management activities, including implementation of Executive Order 12866 (incorporated in Executive Order 13563). The Center also provides information about Federal regulatory activity to the President and his Executive Office, the Congress, agency officials, and the public.
The activities included in the Agenda are, in general, those that will have a regulatory action within the next 12 months. Agencies may choose to include activities that will have a longer timeframe than 12 months. Agency
Agencies prepared entries for this publication to give the public notice of their plans to review, propose, and issue regulations. They have tried to predict their activities over the next 12 months as accurately as possible, but dates and schedules are subject to change. Agencies may withdraw some of the regulations now under development, and they may issue or propose other regulations not included in their agendas. Agency actions in the rulemaking process may occur before or after the dates they have listed. The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda do not create a legal obligation on agencies to adhere to schedules in this publication or to confine their regulatory activities to those regulations that appear within it.
Each agency's section of the Plan contains a narrative statement of regulatory priorities and, for most agencies, a description of the agency's most important significant regulatory and deregulatory actions. Each agency's part of the Agenda contains a preamble providing information specific to that agency plus descriptions of the agency's regulatory and deregulatory actions.
The online, complete Unified Agenda contains the preambles of all participating agencies. Unlike the printed edition, the online Agenda has no fixed ordering. In the online Agenda, users can select the particular agencies' agendas they want to see. Users have broad flexibility to specify the characteristics of the entries of interest to them by choosing the desired responses to individual data fields. To see a listing of all of an agency's entries, a user can select the agency without specifying any particular characteristics of entries.
Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Long-Term Actions are rulemakings reported during the publication cycle that are outside of the required 12-month reporting period for which the Agenda was intended. Completed Actions in the publication cycle are rulemakings that are ending their lifecycle either by Withdrawal or completion of the rulemaking process. Therefore, the Long-Term and Completed RINs do not represent the ongoing, forward-looking nature intended for reporting developing rulemakings in the Agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 4(c). To further differentiate these two stages of rulemaking in the Unified Agenda from active rulemakings, Long-Term and Completed Actions are reported separately from active rulemakings, which can be any of the first three stages of rulemaking listed above. A separate search function is provided on
A bullet (•) preceding the title of an entry indicates that the entry is appearing in the Unified Agenda for the first time.
In the printed edition, all entries are numbered sequentially from the beginning to the end of the publication. The sequence number preceding the title of each entry identifies the location of the entry in this edition. The sequence number is used as the reference in the printed table of contents. Sequence numbers are not used in the online Unified Agenda because the unique Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is able to provide this cross-reference capability.
Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 contained several indexes, which identified entries with various characteristics. These included regulatory actions for which agencies believe that the Regulatory Flexibility Act may require a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, actions selected for periodic review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and actions that may have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132 or other effects on levels of government. These indexes are no longer compiled, because users of the online Unified Agenda have the flexibility to search for entries with any combination of desired characteristics. The online edition retains the Unified Agenda's subject index based on the
All entries in the online Unified Agenda contain uniform data elements including, at a minimum, the following information:
As defined in Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking action that will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or will adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector
A rulemaking that is not Economically Significant but is considered Significant by the agency. This category includes rules that the agency anticipates will be reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or rules that are a priority of the agency head. These rules may or may not be included in the agency's regulatory plan.
A rulemaking that has substantive impacts, but is neither Significant, nor Routine and Frequent, nor Informational/Administrative/Other.
A rulemaking that is a specific case of a multiple recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations and that does not alter the body of the regulation.
A rulemaking that is primarily informational or pertains to agency matters not central to accomplishing the agency's regulatory mandate but that the agency places in the Unified Agenda to inform the public of the activity.
Some agencies have provided the following optional information:
The following abbreviations appear throughout this publication:
A reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and Either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.
Copies of the
Copies of individual agency materials may be available directly from the agency or may be found on the agency's website. Please contact the particular agency for further information.
All editions of The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions since fall 1995 are available in electronic form at
The Government Printing Office's GPO FDsys website contains copies of the Agendas and Regulatory Plans that have been printed in the
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of the significant and not significant regulatory and deregulatory actions being developed in agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in conformance with Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” and 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The agenda also describes regulations affecting small entities as required by section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354. This agenda also identifies regulatory actions that are being reviewed in compliance with section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We invite public comment on those actions as well as any regulation consistent with E.O. 13563.
USDA has attempted to list all regulations and regulatory reviews pending at the time of publication except for minor and routine or repetitive actions, but some may have been inadvertently missed. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this listing. Also, the dates shown for the steps of each action are estimated and are not commitments to act on or by the date shown.
USDA's complete regulatory agenda is available online at
(1) Rules that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
For this edition of the USDA regulatory agenda, the most important regulatory and deregulatory actions are summarized in a Statement of Regulatory Priorities that is included in the Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online regulatory agenda and in part II of the
For further information on any specific entry shown in this agenda, please contact the person listed for that action. For general comments or inquiries about the agenda, please contact Michael Poe, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720-3257.
Office of the Secretary, Commerce.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In compliance with Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, the Department of Commerce (Commerce), in the spring and fall of each year, publishes in the
Commerce's fall 2019 regulatory agenda includes regulatory activities that are expected to be conducted during the period October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020.
Commerce hereby publishes its fall 2019 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions pursuant to Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
In this edition of Commerce's regulatory agenda, a list of the most important significant regulatory and deregulatory actions and a Statement of Regulatory Priorities are included in the Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the issue of the
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, Commerce's entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Within Commerce, the Office of the Secretary and various operating units may issue regulations. Among these operating units, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Bureau of Industry and Security, and the Patent and Trademark Office issue the greatest share of Commerce's regulations.
A large number of regulatory actions reported in the Agenda deal with fishery management programs of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). To avoid repetition of programs and definitions, as well as to provide some understanding of the technical and institutional elements of NMFS' programs, an “Explanation of Information Contained in NMFS Regulatory Entries” is provided below.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Councils also submit to NMFS proposed regulations that they deem necessary or appropriate to implement FMPs. The proposed regulations, FMPs, and FMP amendments are subject to review and approval by NMFS, based on consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. NMFS is responsible for conducting the rulemaking process for FMP implementing regulations. The Council process for developing FMPs and amendments and proposed regulations makes it difficult for NMFS to determine the significance and timing of some regulatory actions under consideration by the Councils at the time the semiannual regulatory agenda is published.
Commerce's fall 2019 regulatory agenda follows.
Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801
Department of Defense (DoD).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda announces the proposed regulatory actions the Department of Defense (DOD) plans for the next 12 months and those completed since the spring 2019 agenda. It was developed under the guidelines of Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” Executive Order 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” and Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” This Agenda documents DOD's work under Executive Order 13777 “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” and many regulatory actions support the recommendations of the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force (as indicated in the individual rule abstracts). Members of the public may submit comments on individual proposed and interim final rulemakings at
This agenda updates the report published on May 22, 2019, and includes regulations expected to be issued and under review over the next 12 months. The next agenda will publish in the spring of 2020.
The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is in the Unified Agenda available online.
For information concerning the overall DoD regulatory improvement program and for general semiannual agenda information, contact Ms. Patricia Toppings, telephone 571-372-0485, or write to Office of the Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Advisory Committee Division, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010, or email:
For questions of a legal nature concerning the agenda and its statutory requirements or obligations, write to Office of the General Counsel, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1600, or call 703-693-9958.
For general information on Office of the Secretary regulations, other than those which are procurement-related, contact Ms. Morgan Park, telephone 571-372-0489, or write to Office of the Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Advisory Committee Division, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010, or email:
For general information on Office of the Secretary regulations which are procurement-related, contact Ms. Jennifer Hawes, telephone 571-372-6115, or write to Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, Defense Pricing and Contracting, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060, or email:
For general information on Department of the Army regulations, contact Ms. Brenda Bowen, telephone 571-515-0206, or write to the U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, ATTN: AAHS-RDO, Building 1458, Suite NW6305, 9301 Chapek Road, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-5605, or email:
For general information on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations, contact Ms. Stacey Jensen, telephone 703-695-6791, or write to Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), 108 Army Pentagon, Room 3E441, Washington, DC 20310-0108, or email:
For general information on Department of the Navy regulations, contact CDR Meredith Werner, telephone 703-614-7408, or write to Department of the Navy, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Administrative Law Division (Code 13), Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Avenue SE, Suite 3000, Washington, DC 20374-5066, or email:
For general information on Department of the Air Force regulations, contact Bao-Anh Trinh, telephone 703-614-8500, or write the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Chief, Information Dominance/Chief Information Officer (SAF CIO/A6), 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1800, or email:
For specific agenda items, contact the appropriate individual indicated for each regulatory action.
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions reports on actions planned by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Military Departments, procurement-related actions, and actions planned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
This agenda also identifies rules impacted by the:
a. Regulatory Flexibility Act;
b. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995;
c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Generally, rules discussed in this agenda will contain five sections: (1) Prerule stage; (2) proposed rule stage; (3) final rule stage; (4) completed actions; and (5) long-term actions. Where certain regulatory actions indicate that small entities are affected, the effect on these entities may not necessarily have significant economic impact on a substantial number of these entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).
The publishing of this agenda does not waive the applicability of the military affairs exemption in section 553 of title 5 U.S.C. and section 3 of Executive Order 12866.
Department of Energy.
Semi-annual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared and is making available its portion of the semi-annual Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Agenda), including its Regulatory Plan (Plan), pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Agenda is a government-wide compilation of upcoming and ongoing regulatory activity, including a brief description of each rulemaking and a timetable for action. The Agenda also includes a list of regulatory actions completed since publication of the last Agenda. The Department of Energy's portion of the Agenda includes regulatory actions called for by statute, including amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) and the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), and programmatic needs of DOE offices.
The internet is the basic means for disseminating the Agenda and providing users the ability to obtain information from the Agenda database. DOE's entire Fall 2019 Regulatory Agenda can be accessed online by going to
Publication in the
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 require the semiannual issuance of an inventory of rulemaking actions under development throughout the Department, offering for public review summarized information about forthcoming regulatory actions.
Ann C. Agnew, Executive Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201; (202) 690-5627.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the Federal government's lead Agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves. HHS enhances the health and well-being of Americans by promoting effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services.
This Agenda presents the regulatory activities that the Department expects to undertake in the foreseeable future to advance this mission. HHS has an agencywide effort to support the Agenda's purpose of encouraging more effective public participation in the regulatory process. For example, to encourage public participation, we regularly update our regulatory web page (
The rulemaking abstracts included in this paper issue of the
Office of the Secretary, DHS.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This regulatory agenda is a semiannual summary of projected regulations, existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components. This agenda provides the public with information about DHS's regulatory and deregulatory activity. DHS expects that this information will enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, the Department's regulatory and deregulatory activity. DHS invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this agenda.
DHS provides this notice pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, Sept. 19, 1980) and Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” (Sept. 30, 1993) as incorporated in Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011) and Executive Order 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (Jan. 30, 2017), which require the Department to publish a semiannual agenda of regulations. The regulatory agenda is a summary of existing and projected regulations as well as actions completed since the publication of the last regulatory agenda for the Department. DHS's last semiannual regulatory agenda was published on June 24, 2019, at 84 FR 29636.
Beginning in fall 2007, the internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires Federal agencies to publish their regulatory flexibility agendas in the
The semiannual agenda of the Department conforms to the Unified Agenda format developed by the Regulatory Information Service Center.
Nancy Harvey, Policy Analyst, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Room 3636-15, 301 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20528,
Nancy Harvey, Policy Analyst, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Room 3636-15, 301 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20528,
Nancy Harvey, Policy Analyst, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Room 3636-15, 301 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20528,
Since 1997, intervening statutory changes, including passage of the Homeland Security Act (HSA) and the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), have significantly changed the applicability of certain provisions of the FSA. The rule codifies the relevant and substantive terms of the FSA and enables the U.S. Government to seek termination of the FSA and litigation concerning its enforcement. Through this rule, DHS and HHS have created a pathway to ensure the humane detention of family units while satisfying the goals of the FSA. The rule also implements related provisions of the TVPRA.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This notice provides the semiannual agenda of rules scheduled for review or development between fall 2019 and fall 2020. The Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 require publication of the agenda.
Unless otherwise indicated, all agency contacts are located at the Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.
You should direct all comments and inquiries about these rules to the appropriate agency contact. You should direct general comments relating to the agenda to the Office of Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, at the address above or at 202-208-3181.
With this publication, the Department satisfies the requirement of Executive Order 12866 that the Department publish an agenda of rules that we have issued or expect to issue and of currently effective rules that we have scheduled for review.
Simultaneously, the Department meets the requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions includes The Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the
In some cases, the Department has withdrawn rules that were placed on previous agendas for which there has been no publication activity or for which a proposed or interim rule was published. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this agenda. Withdrawal of a rule does not necessarily mean that the Department will not proceed with the rulemaking. Withdrawal allows the Department to assess the action further and determine whether rulemaking is appropriate. Following such an assessment, the Department may determine that certain rules listed as withdrawn under this agenda are appropriate for promulgation. If that determination is made, such rules will comply with Executive Order 13771.
Office of the Secretary, Labor.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The internet has become the means for disseminating the entirety of the Department of Labor's semiannual regulatory agenda. However, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires publication of a regulatory flexibility agenda in the
Laura M. Dawkins, Director, Office of Regulatory and Programmatic Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room S-2312, Washington, DC 20210; (202) 693-5959.
Executive Order 12866 requires the semiannual publication of an agenda of regulations that contains a listing of all the regulations the Department of Labor expects to have under active consideration for promulgation, proposal, or review during the coming one-year period. The entirety of the Department's semiannual agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires DOL to publish in the
All interested members of the public are invited and encouraged to let departmental officials know how our regulatory efforts can be improved, and are invited to participate in and comment on the review or development of the regulations listed on the Department's agenda.
RIN: 1205-AB93
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Regulatory Agenda).
The Regulatory and Deregulatory Agenda is a semiannual summary of all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. The intent of the Agenda is to provide the public with information about the Department of Transportation's regulatory activity planned for the next 12 months. It is expected that this information will enable the public to more effectively participate in the Department's regulatory process. The public is also invited to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on the Agenda in general to Jonathan Moss, Assistant General Counsel for Regulation, Office of General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-4723.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on particular items in the Agenda to the individual listed for the regulation or the general rulemaking contact person for the operating administration in appendix B.
A primary goal of the Department of Transportation (Department or DOT) is to allow the public to understand how we make decisions, which necessarily includes being transparent in the way we measure the risks, costs, and benefits of engaging in—or deciding not to engage in—a particular regulatory action. As such, it is our policy to provide an opportunity for public comment on such actions to all interested stakeholders. Above all, transparency and meaningful engagement mandate that regulations should be straightforward, clear, and accessible to any interested stakeholder. The Department also embraces the notion that there should be no more regulations than necessary. We emphasize consideration of non-regulatory solutions and have rigorous processes in place for continual reassessment of existing regulations. These processes provide that regulations and other agency actions are periodically reviewed and, if appropriate, are revised to ensure that they continue to meet the needs for which they were originally designed, and that they remain cost-effective and cost-justified.
To help the Department achieve its goals and in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” (58 FR 51735; Oct. 4, 1993) and the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979), the Department prepares a semiannual regulatory and deregulatory agenda. It summarizes all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. These are matters on which action has begun or is projected during the next 12 months or for which action has been completed since the last Agenda.
In addition, this Agenda was prepared in accordance with three Executive orders issued by President Trump, which directed agencies to further scrutinize their regulations and other agency actions. On January 30, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. Under section 2(a) of the Executive order, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it must identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. On February 24, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda. Under this Executive order, each agency must establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF) to evaluate existing regulations, and make recommendations for their repeal, replacement, or modification. On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, requiring agencies to review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and other similar agency actions that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources.
In response to the mandate in Executive Order 13777, the Department formed an RRTF consisting of senior career and non-career leaders, which has already conducted extensive reviews of existing regulations, and identified a number of rules to be repealed, replaced, or modified. As a result of the RRTF's work, since January 2017, the Department has issued deregulatory actions that reduce regulatory costs on the public by over $3.2 billion (in net present value cost savings). Even when the costs of significant regulatory actions are factored in, the Department's deregulatory actions still result in over $2.9 billion in net cost savings (in net present value). With the RRTF's assistance, the Department has achieved these cost savings in a manner that is fully consistent with enhancing safety. For example, in March 2019, FMCSA promulgated a rule titled ELDT Class B to Class A Upgrade, which will save truck drivers more than $250 million by making it easier (and cheaper) for a driver who already holds a Class B CDL to upgrade to a Class A CDL, without having to take the same training again. This reduces waste without affecting safety.
The Department has also significantly increased the number of deregulatory actions it is pursuing. Today, DOT is pursuing over 130 deregulatory rulemakings, up from just 16 in the fall of 2016.
While each regulatory and deregulatory action is evaluated on its own merits, the RRTF augments the Department's consideration of prospective rulemakings by conducting monthly reviews across all OAs to identify appropriate deregulatory actions. The RRTF also works to ensure that any new regulatory action is rigorously vetted and non-regulatory alternatives are considered. Further information on the RRTF can be found online at:
The Department's ongoing regulatory effort is guided by four fundamental principles—safety, innovation, enabling investment in infrastructure, and reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens. These priorities are grounded in our national interest in maintaining U.S. global leadership in safety, innovation, and economic growth. To accomplish our regulatory goals, we must create a regulatory environment that fosters growth in new and innovative industries without burdening them with unnecessary restrictions. At the same time, safety remains our highest priority; we must remain focused on managing safety risks and being sure that we do not regress from the successes already achieved. Our planned regulatory actions reflect a careful balance that emphasizes the Department's priority in fostering innovation while at the same time meeting the challenges of maintaining a safe, reliable, and sustainable transportation system.
For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is working on reducing regulatory barriers to technology innovation, including the integration of automated vehicles, while continuing to focus on safety. Automated vehicles are expected to increase safety significantly by reducing the likelihood of human error when driving, which today accounts for the overwhelming majority of accidents on our nation's roadways. NHTSA plans to issue regulatory actions that; (1) allow for permanent updates to current FMVSS reflecting new technology; and (2) allow for updates to NHTSA's regulations outlining the administrative processes for petitioning the agency for exemptions, rulemakings, and reconsiderations. Similarly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is working to enable, safely and efficiently, the integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System. UAS are expected to continue to drive innovation and increase safety as operators and manufacturers find new and inventive uses for UAS. For instance, UAS are poised to assist human operators with a number of different mission sets such as inspection of critical infrastructure and search and rescue, enabling beneficial and lifesaving activities that would otherwise be difficult or even impossible for a human to accomplish unassisted. The Department has regulatory efforts underway to further integrate UAS safely and efficiently.
The Department is working on several rulemakings to facilitate a major transformation of our national space program from one in which the federal government has a primary role to one in which private industry drives growth in innovation and launches. The FAA has proposed a rule that will fundamentally change how FAA licenses launches and reentries of commercial space vehicles moving from prescriptive requirements to a performance based approach.
An Office of Management and Budget memorandum, dated June 26, 2019, establishes the format for this Agenda.
First, the Agenda is divided by initiating offices. Then the Agenda is divided into five categories: (1) Prerule stage; (2) proposed rule stage; (3) final rule stage; (4) long-term actions; and (5) completed actions. For each entry, the Agenda provides the following information: (1) Its “significance”; (2) a short, descriptive title; (3) its legal basis; (4) the related regulatory citation in the Code of Federal Regulations; (5) any legal deadline and, if so, for what action (
For nonsignificant regulations issued routinely and frequently as a part of an established body of technical requirements (such as the Federal Aviation Administration's Airspace Rules), to keep those requirements operationally current, we only include the general category of the regulations, the identity of a contact office or official, and an indication of the expected number of regulations; we do not list individual regulations.
In the “Timetable” column, we use abbreviations to indicate the particular documents being considered. ANPRM stands for Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, SNPRM for Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and NPRM for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Listing a future date in this column does not mean we have made a decision to issue a document; it is the earliest date on which a rulemaking document may publish. In addition, these dates are based on current schedules. Information received after the issuance of this Agenda could result in a decision not to take regulatory action or in changes to proposed publication dates. For example, the need for further evaluation could result in a later publication date; evidence of a greater need for the regulation could result in an earlier publication date.
Finally, a dot (•) preceding an entry indicates that the entry appears in the Agenda for the first time.
The internet is the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
1. The agency's Agenda preamble;
2. Rules that are in the agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
3. Any rules that the agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's
Our Agenda is intended primarily for the use of the public. Since its inception, we have made modifications and refinements that we believe provide the public with more helpful information, as well as making the Agenda easier to use. We would like you, the public, to make suggestions or comments on how the Agenda could be further improved.
We also seek your suggestions on which of our existing regulations you believe need to be reviewed to determine whether they should be revised or revoked. We particularly draw your attention to the Department's review plan in appendix D.
The Department is especially interested in obtaining information on requirements that have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” and, therefore, must be reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. If you have any suggested regulations, please submit them to us, along with your explanation of why they should be reviewed.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, comments are specifically invited on regulations that we have targeted for review under section 610 of the Act. The phrase (sec. 610 Review) appears at the end of the title for these reviews. Please see appendix D for the Department's section 610 review plans.
Executive Orders 13132 and 13175 require us to develop an account process to ensure “meaningful and timely input” by State, local, and tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism or tribal implications. These policies are defined in the Executive orders to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects” on States or Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and them, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and various levels of Government or Indian tribes. Therefore, we encourage State and local Governments or Indian tribes to provide us with information about how the Department's rulemakings impact them.
The Department is publishing this regulatory Agenda in the
To obtain a copy of a specific regulatory document in the Agenda, you should communicate directly with the contact person listed with the regulation at the address below. We note that most, if not all, such documents, including the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, are available through the internet at
The following is a list of persons who can be contacted within the Department for general information concerning the rulemaking process within the various operating administrations.
FAA—Brandon Roberts, Acting Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-9677.
FHWA—Jennifer Outhouse, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-0761.
FMCSA—Steven J. LaFreniere, Regulatory Ombudsman, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-0596.
NHTSA—Steve Wood, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2992.
FRA—Amanda Maizel, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 493-8014.
FTA—Chaya Koffman, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-3101.
SLSDC—Carrie Mann Lavigne, Chief Counsel, 180 Andrews Street, Massena, NY 13662; telephone (315) 764-3200.
PHMSA—Stephen Gordon, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-1101.
MARAD—Gabriel Chavez, Office of Chief Counsel, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2621.
OST—Jonathan Moss, Assistant General Counsel for Regulation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-4723.
All comments via the internet are submitted through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at the following address:
The public also may review regulatory dockets at or deliver comments on proposed rulemakings to the Dockets Office at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, 1-800-647-5527. Working Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The Department of Transportation has long recognized the importance of regularly reviewing its existing regulations to determine whether they need to be revised or revoked. Our Regulatory Policies and Procedures require such reviews. We also have responsibilities under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (January 18, 2011), Executive Order 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Agenda,” and
Section 610 requires that we conduct reviews of rules that: (1) Have been published within the last 10 years; and (2) have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” (SEISNOSE). It also requires that we publish in the
Some reviews may be conducted earlier than scheduled. For example, to the extent resources permit, the plain language reviews will be conducted more quickly. Other events, such as accidents, may result in the need to conduct earlier reviews of some rules. Other factors may also result in the need to make changes; for example, we may make changes in response to public comment on this plan or in response to a presidentially mandated review. If there is any change to the review plan, we will note the change in the following Agenda. For any section 610 review, we will provide the required notice prior to the review.
Generally, the agencies have divided their rules into 10 different groups and plan to analyze one group each year. For purposes of these reviews, a year will coincide with the fall-to-fall schedule for publication of the Agenda. Most agencies provide historical information about the reviews that have occurred over the past 10 years. Thus, Year 1 (2018) begins in the fall of 2018 and ends in the fall of 2019; Year 2 (2019) begins in the fall of 2019 and ends in the fall of 2020, and so on. The exception to this general rule is the FAA, which provides information about the reviews it completed for this year and prospective information about the reviews it intends to complete in the next 10 years. Thus, for FAA Year 1 (2017) begins in the fall of 2017 and ends in the fall of 2018; Year 2 (2018) begins in the fall of 2018 and ends in the fall of 2019, and so on. We request public comment on the timing of the reviews. For example, is there a reason for scheduling an analysis and review for a particular rule earlier than we have? Any comments concerning the plan or analyses should be submitted to the regulatory contacts listed in appendix B, General Rulemaking Contact Persons.
The agency will analyze each of the rules in a given year's group to determine whether any rule has a SEISNOSE and, thus, requires review in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The level of analysis will, of course, depend on the nature of the rule and its applicability. Publication of agencies' section 610 analyses listed each fall in this Agenda provides the public with notice and an opportunity to comment consistent with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We request that public comments be submitted to us early in the analysis year concerning the small entity impact of the rules to help us in making our determinations.
In each Fall Agenda, the agency will publish the results of the analyses it has completed during the previous year. For rules that had a negative finding on SEISNOSE, we will give a short explanation (
The agency will also examine the specified rules to determine whether any other reasons exist for revising or revoking the rule or for rewriting the rule in plain language. In each Fall Agenda, the agency will also publish information on the results of the examinations completed during the previous year.
The Agenda identifies the pending DOT section 610 Reviews by inserting “(Section 610 Review)” after the title for the specific entry. For further information on the pending reviews, see the Agenda entries at
•
•
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has elected to use the two-step, two-year process used by most Department of Transportation (DOT) modes in past plans. As such, the FAA has divided its rules into 10 groups as displayed in the table below. During the first year (the “
The RFA does not define “significant economic impact.” Therefore, there is no clear rule or number to determine when a significant economic impact occurs. However, the Small Business Administration (SBA) states that significance should be determined by considering the size of the business, the size of the competitor's business, and the impact the same regulation has on larger competitors.
Likewise, the RFA does not define “substantial number.” However, the legislative history of the RFA suggests that a substantial number must be at least one but does not need to be an overwhelming percentage such as more than half. The SBA states that the substantiality of the number of small businesses affected should be determined on an industry-specific basis.
This analysis consisted of the following three steps:
1. Review of the number of small entities affected by the amendments to parts 133 through 139 and parts 157 through 169.
2. Identification and analysis of all amendments to parts 133 through 139 and parts 157 through 169 since 2009 to determine whether any still have or now have a SEISNOSE.
3. Review of the FAA's regulatory flexibility assessment of each amendment performed as required by the RFA.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has adopted regulations in title 23 of the CFR, chapter I, related to the Federal-Aid Highway Program. These regulations implement and carry out the provisions of Federal law relating to the administration of Federal aid for highways. The primary law authorizing Federal aid for highways is chapter I of title 23 of the U.S.C. 145, which expressly provides for a federally assisted State program. For this reason, the regulations adopted by the FHWA in title 23 of the CFR primarily relate to the requirements that States must meet to receive Federal funds for construction and other work related to highways. Because the regulations in title 23 primarily relate to States, which are not defined as small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the FHWA believes that its regulations in title 23 do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FHWA solicits public comment on this preliminary conclusion.
None
49 CFR part 210—Railroad Noise Emission Compliance Regulations
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended (sections 601 through 612 of title 5, United States Code), requires Federal regulatory agencies to analyze all proposed and final rules to determine their economic impact on small entities, which include small businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions. Section 610 requires government agencies to periodically review all regulations that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SEISNOSE).
In complying with this section, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has elected to use the two-step, two-year process used by most Department of Transportation (DOT) modes. As such, FTA has divided its rules into 10 groups as displayed in the table below. During the analysis year, the listed rules will be analyzed to identify those with a SEISNOSE. During the review year, each rule identified in the analysis year as having a SEISNOSE will be reviewed in accordance with Section 610(b) to determine if it should be continued without change or changed to minimize the impact on small entities.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For example, the Harmonization of International Standards, 2137-AF32, rulemaking action is part of PHMSA's ongoing biennial process to harmonize the HMR with international regulations and standards. Federal law and policy strongly favor the harmonization of domestic and international standards for hazardous materials transportation. The Federal hazardous materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101
Harmonization facilitates international trade by minimizing the costs and other burdens of complying with multiple or inconsistent safety requirements for transportation of hazardous materials. Safety is enhanced by creating a uniform framework for compliance, and as the volume of hazardous materials transported in international commerce continues to grow, harmonization becomes increasingly important.
The impact that the 2137-AF32 rulemaking will have on small entities is not expected to be significant. The rulemaking will clarify provisions based on PHMSA's initiatives and correspondence with the regulated community and domestic and international stakeholders. The changes are generally intended to provide relief and, as a result, positive economic benefits to shippers, carriers, and packaging manufacturers and testers, including small entities.
In conclusion, many companies will realize economic benefits, because of the amendments in the 2137-AF32 rulemaking. The amendments are expected to result in an overall net cost savings and ease the regulatory compliance burden for shippers engaged in domestic and international commerce, including trans-border shipments within North America. Additionally, the effective changes of this rulemaking will relieve U.S. companies, including small entities competing in foreign markets, from the burden of complying with a dual system of regulations. This rulemaking is one example of PHMSA's review of rulemakings which ensures that our rules do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Abstract: This rule would establish requirements to appropriately address known safety risks posed by train operations that use fewer than two crewmembers. FRA is considering options based on public comments on the proposed rule and other information.
Agency Contact: Amanda Maizel, Attorney Adviser, Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
Department of the Treasury.
Semiannual regulatory agenda and annual regulatory plan.
This notice is given pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), which require the publication by the Department of a semiannual agenda of regulations. E.O. 12866 also requires the publication by the Department of a regulatory plan for the upcoming fiscal year. The purpose of the agenda is to provide advance information about pending regulatory activities and encourage public participation in the regulatory process.
The Agency contact identified in the item relating to that regulation.
The semiannual regulatory agenda includes regulations that the Department has issued or expects to issue and rules currently in effect that are under departmental or bureau review. For this edition of the regulatory agenda, the most important significant regulatory actions and a Statement of Regulatory Priorities are included in the Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the
The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
(1) Rules that are in the regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that have been identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, the entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
The Department has listed in this agenda all regulations and regulatory reviews pending at the time of publication, except for technical, minor, and routine actions. On occasion, a regulatory matter may be inadvertently left off of the agenda or an emergency may arise that requires the Department to initiate a regulatory action not yet on the agenda. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this agenda. For most entries, Treasury includes a projected date for the next rulemaking action; however, the date is an estimate and is not a commitment to publish on the projected date. In addition, some agenda entries are marked as “withdrawn” when there has been no publication activity. Withdrawal of a rule from the agenda does not necessarily mean that a rule will not be included in a future agenda but may mean that further consideration is warranted and that the regulatory action is unlikely in the next 12 months.
Public participation in the rulemaking process is the foundation of effective regulations. For this reason, the Department invites comments on all regulatory and deregulatory items included in the agenda and invites input on items that should be included in the semiannual agenda.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This Agenda announces the regulations that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will have under development or review during the 12-month period beginning fall 2019. The purpose in publishing the Department's regulatory agenda is to allow all interested persons the opportunity to participate in VA's regulatory planning.
Interested persons are invited to comment on the entries listed in the agenda by contacting the individual agency contact listed for each entry or by writing to: Director, Regulations Management (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420.
Michael Shores at (202) 461-4921 or Consuela Benjamin at (202) 461-5952.
This document is issued pursuant to Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” (and implementing guidance) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which require that executive agencies semiannually publish in the
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board submits the following agenda of proposed regulatory activities which may be conducted by the agency during the next 12 months. This regulatory agenda may be revised by the agency during the coming months as a result of action taken by the Board.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.
For information concerning Board regulations and proposed actions, contact Gretchen Jacobs, General Counsel, (202) 272-0040 (voice) or (202) 272-0062 (TTY).
Environmental Protection Agency.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the Semiannual Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions online at
• Regulations in the Semiannual Agenda that are under development, completed, or canceled since the last agenda; and
• Reviews of regulations with small business impacts under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
If you have questions or comments about a particular action, please get in touch with the agency contact listed in each agenda entry. If you have general questions about the Semiannual Agenda, please contact: Darryl Adams (
EPA is committed to a regulatory strategy that effectively achieves the Agency's mission of protecting the environment and the health, welfare, and safety of Americans while also supporting economic growth, job creation, competitiveness, and innovation. EPA publishes the Semiannual Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions to update the public about regulatory activity undertaken in support of this mission. In the Semiannual Agenda, EPA provides notice of our plans to review, propose, and issue regulations.
Additionally, EPA's Semiannual Agenda includes information about rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and review of those regulations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
In this document, EPA explains in greater detail the types of actions and information available in the Semiannual Agenda and actions that are currently undergoing review specifically for impacts on small entities.
“E-Agenda,” “online regulatory agenda,” and “semiannual regulatory agenda” all refer to the same comprehensive collection of information that, until 2007, was published in the
“Regulatory Flexibility Agenda” refers to a document that contains information about regulations that may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We continue to publish this document in the
“Unified Regulatory Agenda” refers to the collection of all agencies' agendas with an introduction prepared by the Regulatory Information Service Center facilitated by the General Service Administration.
“Regulatory Agenda Preamble” refers to the document you are reading now. It appears as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and introduces both EPA's Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and the e-Agenda.
“610 Review” as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act means a periodic review within ten years of promulgating a final rule that has or may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA maintains a list of these actions at
A number of environmental laws authorize EPA's actions, including but not limited to:
Not only must EPA comply with environmental laws, but also administrative legal requirements that apply to the issuance of regulations, such as: The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), and the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
EPA also meets a number of requirements contained in numerous Executive Orders: 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, Feb. 3, 2017); 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011); 12898, “Environmental Justice” (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994); 13045, “Children's Health Protection” (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997); 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999); 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000); 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
You can make your voice heard by getting in touch with the contact person
Instructions on how to submit your comments through
EPA believes its actions will be more cost effective and protective if the development process includes stakeholders working with us to help identify the most practical and effective solutions to environmental problems. EPA encourages you to become involved in its rule and policymaking process. For more information about EPA's efforts to increase transparency, participation and collaboration in EPA activities, please visit
EPA includes regulations in the e-Agenda. However, there is no legal significance to the omission of an item from the agenda, and EPA generally does not include the following categories of actions:
• Administrative actions such as delegations of authority, changes of address, or phone numbers;
•
•
•
•
•
•
Meanwhile, the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda includes:
• Actions likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
• Rules the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the RFA.
EPA has one ongoing 610 review in this Agenda.
Online, you can choose how to sort the agenda entries by specifying the characteristics of the entries of interest in the desired individual data fields for both the
Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1. Prerule Stage—EPA's prerule actions generally are intended to determine whether the agency should initiate rulemaking. Prerulemakings may include anything that influences or leads to rulemaking; this would include Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs), studies or analyses of the possible need for regulatory action.
2. Proposed Rule Stage—Proposed rulemaking actions include EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemakings (NPRMs); these proposals are scheduled to publish in the
3. Final Rule Stage—Final rulemaking actions are those actions that EPA is scheduled to finalize and publish in the
4. Long-Term Actions—This section includes rulemakings for which the next scheduled regulatory action (such as publication of a NPRM or final rule) is twelve or more months into the future. We urge you to explore becoming involved even if an action is listed in the Long-Term category.
5. Completed Actions—EPA's completed actions are those that have been promulgated and published in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Agenda entries include only the nine categories of information that are required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and by
E-Agenda entries include:
a.
b.
1. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
2. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients; or
3. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles in Executive Order 12866.
c.
d.
e.
a.
b.
(i) A significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, or
(ii) a significant guidance document (
c.
(i) It is expressly exempt by Executive Order 13771 (issued with respect to a “military, national security, or foreign affairs function of the United States”; or related to “agency organization, management, or personnel”), or
(ii) it addresses an emergency such as critical health, safety, financial, or non-exempt national security matters (offset requirements may be exempted or delayed), or
(iii) it is required to meet a statutory or judicial deadline (offset requirements may be exempted or delayed), or
(iv) expected to generate de minimis costs;
d.
e.
f.
The
Some actions listed in the Agenda include a URL for an EPA-maintained website that provides additional information about the action.
EPA maintains a list of its deregulatory actions under development, as well as those that are completed, at
When EPA publishes either an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Section 610 of the RFA requires that an agency review, within 10 years of promulgation, each rule that has or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. At this time, EPA has one ongoing 610 review.
EPA has established an official public docket for this 610 review. While comments for this review are no longer being accepted, they can continue to be accessed at
For each of EPA's rulemakings, consideration is given to whether there will be any adverse impact on any small entity. EPA attempts to fit the regulatory requirements, to the extent feasible, to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to the regulation.
Under the RFA as amended by SBREFA, the Agency must prepare a formal analysis of the potential negative impacts on small entities, convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (proposed rule stage), and prepare a Small Entity Compliance Guide (final rule stage) unless the Agency certifies a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For more detailed information about the Agency's policy and practice with respect to implementing the RFA/SBREFA, please visit EPA's RFA/SBREFA website at
Finally, we would like to thank those of you who choose to join with us in making progress on the complex issues involved in protecting human health and the environment. Collaborative efforts such as EPA's open rulemaking process are a valuable tool for addressing the problems we face, and the regulatory agenda is an important part of that process.
Julia Burch, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460,
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7405M, Washington, DC 20460,
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7405M, Washington, DC 20460,
General Services Administration (GSA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda announces the proposed regulatory actions that GSA plans for the next 12 months and those completed since the fall 2018 edition. This agenda was developed under the guidelines of Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as amended, Executive Order 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” and Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” GSA's purpose in publishing this agenda is to allow interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.
This agenda updates the report published on June 24, 2019, and includes regulations expected to be issued and under review over the next 12 months. The next agenda is scheduled to be published in the spring of 2020.
The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is in the Unified Agenda available online.
Lois Mandell, Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, 1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405-0001, 202-501-2735.
GSA's cybersecurity requirements mandate contractors to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of unclassified GSA information and information systems from cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and threats in accordance with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 and associated Federal cybersecurity requirements. This rule will require contracting officers to incorporate applicable GSA cybersecurity requirements within the statement of work to ensure compliance with Federal cybersecurity requirements and implement best practices for preventing cyber incidents. These GSA requirements mandate applicable controls and standards (
Contract requirements for internal information systems, external contractor systems, cloud systems, and mobile systems will be covered by this rule. This rule will also update existing GSAR provision 552.239-70, Information Technology Security Plan and Security Authorization, and GSAR clause 552.239-71, Security Requirements for Unclassified Information Technology Resources, to only require the provision and clause when the contract will involve information or information systems connected to a GSA network.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
NASA's regulatory agenda describes those regulations being considered for development or amendment by NASA, the need and legal basis for the actions being considered, the name and telephone number of the knowledgeable official, whether a regulatory analysis is required, and the status of regulations previously reported.
The regulatory plan is a statement of the Agency's priorities that describe legislative and programmatic activities, highlight rulemaking that streamline's regulations and report requirements, identify regulations that are of particular concern to small businesses, include preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of each rule, and provide specific citation of actions required by statue or court order.
Acting Associate Administrator, Mission Support Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546.
Cheryl E. Parker, (202) 358-0252.
OMB guidelines dated June 26, 2019, “Fall 2019 Data Call for the Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,” require a regulatory agenda of those regulations under development and review to be published in the
Office of Management and Budget.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is publishing its semiannual agenda of upcoming activities for Federal regulations, OMB Guidance, Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Policy Letters, and Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Board Cost Accounting Standards.
OMB Guidance and OFPP Policy Letters are published in accordance with OMB's internal procedures for implementing Executive Order 12866 (October 4, 1993, 58 FR 51735). OMB policy guidelines are issued under authority derived from several sources, including: Subtitles I, II, and V of title 31, United States Code; Executive Order 11541; and other specific authority as cited. OMB Guidance and OFPP Policy Letters communicate guidance and instructions of a continuing nature to executive branch agencies. As such, most OMB Guidance and OFPP Policy Letters are not regulations. Nonetheless, because these issuances are typically of interest to the public, they are generally published in the
CASB Cost Accounting Standards are issued under authority derived from 41 U.S.C. 1501
For purposes of this agenda, we have excluded directives that outline procedures to be followed in connection with the President's budget and legislative programs, as well as directives that affect only the internal functions, management, or personnel of Federal agencies.
See the agency contact person listed for each entry in the agenda, c/o Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. On the overall agenda, contact Jamal Rittenberry, (202) 395-3589, at the above address.
Railroad Retirement Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda contains a list of regulations that the Board is developing or proposes to develop in the next 12 months and regulations that are scheduled to be reviewed in that period.
844 North Rush Street, Chicago, IL 60611-1275.
Marguerite P. Dadabo, Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Railroad Retirement Board, (312) 751-4945, Fax (312) 751-7102, TDD (312) 751-4701.
Regulations that are routine in nature or which pertain solely to internal Agency management have not been included in the agenda.
By Authority of the Board.
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This semiannual Regulatory Agenda (Agenda) is a summary of current and projected regulatory and deregulatory actions and completed actions of the Small Business Administration (SBA). This summary information is intended to enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, SBA's regulatory and deregulatory activities. Accordingly, SBA invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires SBA to publish in the
SBA is fully committed to implementing the Administration's regulatory reform policies, as established by Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (January 30, 2017) and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda (February 24, 2017). In order to fully implement the goal of these executive orders, SBA seeks feedback from the public in identifying any SBA regulations affected parties believe impose unnecessary burdens or costs that exceed their benefits; eliminate jobs or inhibit job creation; or are ineffective or outdated.
The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)) delegates to SBA's Administrator the responsibility for establishing, reviewing, and updating small business definitions, commonly referred to as size standards. The Small Business Runway Extension Act amended the Small Business Act, changing the period for calculating average annual receipts from three (3) years to five (5) years.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda announces the proposed regulatory actions the Council plans for the next 12 months and those completed since the fall 2018 edition. This agenda was developed under the guidelines of Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as amended, Executive Order 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” and Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The purpose in publishing this agenda is to allow interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Members of the public may submit comments on individual proposed and interim final rulemakings at
Lois Mandell, Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, 1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405-0001, 202-501-4755.
DoD, GSA, and NASA, under their several statutory authorities, jointly issue and maintain the FAR through periodic issuance of changes published in the
The electronic version of the FAR, including changes, can be accessed at
In its final rule, SBA has clarified that, as a general matter, its small business contracting regulations apply regardless of the place of performance. In light of these changes, there is a need to amend the FAR, both to bring its coverage into alignment with SBA's regulation, and to give agencies the tools they need, especially the ability to use set-asides to maximize opportunities for small businesses overseas.
SBA has included contracts performed outside of the United States in agencies' prime contracting goals since FY 2016. Although inclusion for goaling purposes is not dependent on FAR changes, amending FAR part 19 will allow agencies to take advantage of the tools authorized for providing small business opportunities for contracts awarded outside of the United States.
This will make it easier for small businesses to receive additional opportunities for contracts performed outside of the United States.
Paragraph (b) requires the FAR Council to review the FAR to assess every regulation that requires a specific clause in contracts for commercial products or commercial services, unless the regulation is required by law or Executive Order. Paragraph (b) also requires that revisions to the FAR be proposed to eliminate those regulations unless the FAR Council makes a determination not to eliminate a regulation.
Paragraph (c) requires the FAR Council to review the FAR to assess every regulation that requires a prime contractor to include a specific clause in subcontracts for commercially available off-the-shelf items, unless the clause is required by law or Executive Order. Paragraph (c) also requires that revisions to the FAR be proposed to eliminate those regulations unless the FAR Council makes a determination not to eliminate a regulation.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) require these revisions to be proposed within one year of the date of the enactment of section 839.
The Government uses suspension and debarment procedures to exercise business judgment. These procedures give Federal officials a discretionary means to exclude parties from participation in certain transactions,
The case proposes to amend the applicable provisions in the FAR that would provide that materials shall be considered to be of foreign origin if: (A) For iron and steel end products, the cost of foreign iron and steel used in such iron and steel end products constitutes 5 percent or more of the cost of all the products used in such iron and steel end products; or (B) for all other end products, the cost of the foreign products used in such end products constitutes 45 percent or more of the cost of all the products used in such end products.
The case also proposes to amend the applicable provisions in the FAR so that the executive agency concerned shall in each instance conduct the reasonableness and public interest determination referred to in sections 8302 and 8303 of title 41, United States Code, on the basis of the following described differential formula, subject to the terms thereof: The sum determined by computing 20 percent (for other than small businesses), or 30 percent (for small businesses), of the offer or offered price of materials of foreign origin.
Effective January 15, 2019, PPIRS was officially retired to conclude its merger with the CPARS. Data from PPIRS has been merged into
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”), in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, is publishing a semiannual agenda of rulemakings that the Commission expects to propose or promulgate over the next year. The Commission welcomes comments from small entities and others on the agenda.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, (202) 418-5964,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601,
(1) A brief description of the subject area of any rule that the agency expects to propose or promulgate, which is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(2) A summary of the nature of any such rule under consideration for each subject area listed in the agenda, the objectives and legal basis for the issuance of the rule, and an approximate schedule for completing action on any rule for which the agency has issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking; and
(3) The name and telephone number of an agency official knowledgeable about the items listed in the agenda.
Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an agenda of rulemakings that it presently expects may be considered during the course of the next year. Subject to a determination for each rule, it is possible as a general matter that some of these rules may have some impact on small entities.
The Commission's Fall 2019 regulatory flexibility agenda is included in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is publishing this agenda as part of the Fall 2019 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The Bureau reasonably anticipates having the regulatory matters identified below under consideration during the period from October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020. The next agenda will be published in spring 2020 and will update this agenda through spring 2021. Publication of this agenda is in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This information is current as of July 25, 2019.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.
A staff contact is included for each regulatory item listed herein. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
The Bureau is publishing its Fall 2019 Agenda as part of the Fall 2019 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agenda lists the regulatory matters that the Bureau reasonably anticipates having under consideration during the period from October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020, as described further below.
Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (Dodd-Frank Act), the Bureau has rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, consumer education, and other authorities relating to consumer financial products and services. These authorities include the authority to issue regulations under more than a dozen Federal consumer financial laws, which transferred to the Bureau from seven Federal agencies on July 21, 2011. The Bureau's general purpose, as specified in section 1021(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, is to implement and enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive.
Section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act specifies the objectives of the Bureau, including ensuring that, with respect to consumer financial products and services, consumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions; consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination; outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens; that Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently, without regard to the status of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair competition; and markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.
As a general matter, the Bureau believes that it can best achieve these statutory purposes by using its various tools to focus on the prevention of consumer harm. With specific regard to rulemaking, the Bureau seeks to articulate clear rules of the road for regulated entities that promote competition, increase transparency, and preserve fair markets for financial products and services. If Congress directs the Bureau to promulgate rules or address specific issues through rulemaking, the Bureau will comply with the law. If the Bureau has discretion, the Bureau will focus on preventing consumer harm by maximizing informed consumer choice, and by reducing unwarranted regulatory burden which can adversely affect competition and consumers' access to financial products and services. The Bureau is working on various initiatives to achieve these objectives as described below.
A new permanent director of the Bureau took office in December 2018. The Director embarked on a listening tour to engage with Bureau stakeholders, employees, and outside experts, building on feedback submitted through more than 88,000 public comments in response to the Bureau's 2018 “Call for Evidence” initiative. This Unified Agenda represents the first one the Bureau has prepared following the Director's listening tour. It seeks to provide the public with visibility into the rulemaking activities in which the Bureau is likely to be engaged over the next 12 months and those that are contemplated in the ensuing year. To enhance transparency, the Bureau has updated this Unified Agenda to identify current priorities and to delete outdated items.
The Bureau is engaged in a number of rulemakings to implement directives mandated in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act of 2018 (EGRRCPA), Public Law 115-174, 132 Stat. 1297, the Dodd-Frank Act, and other statutes. As part of these rulemakings, the Bureau is working to maximize consumer welfare and achieve other statutory objectives through protecting consumers from harm and minimizing regulatory burden, including facilitating industry compliance with rules.
For example, in March 2019, the Bureau published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to seek public comment relating to implementation of section 307 of the EGRRCPA, which amends the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to mandate that the Bureau prescribe certain regulations relating to “Property Assessed Clean Energy” (PACE) financing. As defined by EGRRCPA section 307, PACE financing results in a tax assessment on a consumer's real property and covers the costs of home improvements. The required regulations must carry out the purposes of TILA's ability-to-repay (ATR) requirements, currently in place for residential mortgage loans, with respect to PACE financing, and apply TILA's general civil liability provision for violations of the ATR requirements the Bureau will prescribe for PACE financing. The regulations must “account for the unique nature” of PACE financing. The Bureau is reviewing the comments it received in response to the ANPRM, as it considers next steps to facilitate the development of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
The Bureau has also been engaged in a range of other activities to support its rulemaking to implement the EGRRCPA. For example, the Bureau updated its small entity compliance guides and
In anticipation of rulemaking activity, the Bureau has also conducted a preliminary analysis of the number of lenders potentially impacted by implementation of section 108 of the EGRRCPA, which relates to escrow requirements for loans made by certain creditors. The Bureau released the analysis late this summer, which shows that a limited number of additional lenders would be exempt under section 108 of the EGRRCPA once implemented by rule.
Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to require, subject to rules prescribed by the Bureau, financial institutions to collect, report, and make public certain information concerning credit applications made by women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses. The Bureau is hosting a symposium on small business data collection in November 2019 in order to facilitate a robust discussion with outside experts on the issues implicated by creating such a data collection and reporting regime. After the symposium, the Bureau anticipates that its next step will be the release of materials in advance of convening a panel under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy, to consult with representatives of small businesses that may be affected by the rulemaking.
The Bureau is continuing certain other rulemakings described in its Spring 2019 Agenda to articulate clear rules of the road for regulated entities that promote competition, increase transparency, and preserve fair markets for financial products and services.
For example, to consider concerns about possible unwarranted regulatory burden, the Bureau issued an NPRM in May 2019 to reconsider the thresholds for reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit under the Bureau's 2015 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) rule. The NPRM also proposed to incorporate into Regulation C an interpretive and procedural rule that the Bureau issued in August 2018 to clarify partial HMDA exemptions created by the EGRRCPA. This summer, the Bureau reopened the comment period of certain aspects of the proposed rule until mid-October. Thus, the Bureau plans to issue two separate final rules to address different aspects of the proposed rule at different times—the first one in the fall of 2019 would address the proposed 2-year extension of the temporary threshold for collecting and reporting data on open-end lines of credit and the EGRRCPA partial exemption provisions, and the second one in the spring of 2020 would address the proposed changes to the permanent thresholds for collecting and reporting data on open-end lines of credit and closed-end mortgage loans. Likewise, to consider concerns about possible unwarranted regulatory burden, the Bureau also issued an ANPRM in May 2019 concerning certain data points that are reported under the 2015 HMDA rule and coverage of certain business or commercial purpose loans. In June 2019, the Bureau extended the comment period on the ANPRM to mid-October. In summer 2020, the Bureau expects to issue an NPRM to follow up on the ANPRM. The Bureau also expects to issue an NPRM addressing the public disclosure of HMDA data in light of consumer privacy interests, so that collection and reporting of data points and public disclosure of those data points can be considered concurrently.
In addition, in February 2019, the Bureau issued an NPRM relating to reconsideration of the mandatory underwriting requirements of a 2017 rule titled Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans. In the NPRM, the Bureau initially determined that the evidence underlying the identification of the unfair and abusive practice in the mandatory underwriting provisions of the 2017 rule was not sufficiently robust and reliable to support that determination, in light of the impact those provisions will have on the market for covered short-term and longer-term balloon-payment loans, and the ability of consumers to obtain such loans, among other things. The Bureau also initially determined that its approach for its unfairness and abusiveness determinations was sufficiently problematic to necessitate reconsideration. Based on its reconsideration of those issues, the Bureau proposed to rescind the mandatory underwriting provisions in their entirety. The comment period for the NPRM closed in May 2019 and the Bureau is carefully reviewing the approximately 190,000 comments it received. The Bureau expects to take final action with respect to this proposal in April 2020.
Finally, the Bureau issued an NPRM in May 2019, which would prescribe rules under Regulation F to govern the activities of debt collectors, as that term is defined under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Bureau's proposal would, among other things, address communications in connection with debt collection; interpret and apply prohibitions on harassment or abuse, false or misleading representations, and unfair practices in debt collection; and clarify requirements for certain consumer-facing debt collection disclosures. The proposal builds on the Bureau's research and pre-rulemaking activities regarding the debt collection market, which remains a top source of complaints to the Bureau. The Bureau also is engaged in testing of consumer disclosures related to time-barred debt disclosures that were not the focus of the May 2019 proposal. After testing, the Bureau will assess whether to issue a supplemental NPRM seeking comments on any disclosure proposal related to the collection of time-barred debt. The Bureau expects to take final action with regard to the May 2019 NPRM in 2020.
In addition to these three rulemakings in which the Bureau already has issued proposals, the Bureau also is continuing work related to a potential rulemaking to amend the Bureau's Remittance Rule.
In January 2019, the Bureau completed an assessment of rules implementing Dodd-Frank Act provisions that require mortgage lenders to determine consumers' ability to repay loans and define certain “qualified mortgages” that are presumed to comply with the statutory requirements.
In light of feedback received in response to the Bureau's 2018 Call for Evidence and various other outreach to stakeholders, the Bureau has decided to add two new entries to its long-term regulatory agenda. This portion of the agenda focuses on potential regulatory actions that an agency may engage in beyond the current fiscal year, and currently includes issues such as potential rulemaking or other activity regarding the Dodd-Frank Act's prohibition on abusive acts or practices. The Bureau is now adding entries to address issues of concern in connection with loan originator compensation and to facilitate the use of electronic channels of communication in the origination and servicing of credit card accounts.
As to loan originator compensation, the Bureau has received feedback that aspects of Regulation Z's loan originator compensation requirements are unnecessarily restrictive. The Bureau is considering a rulemaking to address certain of these concerns. In particular, the Bureau plans to examine whether to permit adjustments to a loan originator's compensation in connection with originating State housing finance authority loans in order to facilitate the origination of such loans. The Bureau also plans to examine whether to permit creditors to decrease a loan originator's compensation due to the loan originator's error in order to provide clearer rules of the road for regulated entities. The Bureau has no current plans to consider other significant potential changes.
As to electronic communications, the Bureau has received feedback that the intersection of certain requirements of Regulation Z and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN) are too restrictive for consumers applying for credit card accounts via electronic channels and for consumers willing, or preferring, to receive account information electronically only. To decrease regulatory burdens that may be inhibiting the use of electronic communication, the Bureau is considering a rulemaking to address a range of issues at the intersection of E-SIGN and Regulation Z with regard to credit cards. The Bureau also notes that similar concerns about the effect of E-SIGN have been raised with respect to other types of consumer financial products and services including checking accounts. The Bureau anticipates that what it learns in considering these issues in the credit card context may assist the Bureau in assessing whether there are similar concerns with other financial products and services that may be appropriate to address in future rulemakings.
The Bureau is engaged in other rulemakings consistent with its general interest in modernizing disclosure rules in light of new and emerging technology. For example, the Bureau issued an NPRM in May that, among other things, proposed regulations that would modernize content and delivery requirements for certain disclosures in the debt collection context. The Bureau is interested in exploring ways to adapt disclosure regulations so that they more effectively inform the increasing number of consumers who use digital media for financial products and services, including, but not limited to, financial products, such as credit cards.
The Bureau is also actively reviewing existing regulations. Section 1022(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Bureau to conduct an assessment of each significant rule or order adopted by the Bureau under Federal consumer financial law and publish a report of each assessment not later than 5 years after the effective date of the subject matter or order. The Bureau will be conducting an assessment of its regulations to consolidate various mortgage origination disclosures under the Truth in Lending Act and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires the Bureau to consider the effect on small entities of certain rules it promulgates. The Bureau published in May 2019 its plan for conducting reviews, consistent with section 610 of the RFA, of certain regulations which are believed to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Congress specified that the purpose of such reviews shall be to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent with the stated objectives of the applicable statutes, to minimize any significant economic impact of the rules upon a substantial number of such small entities. The Bureau is reviewing comments received in response to its request for comment on the first such review, concerning the impact on small banks and credit unions of a 2009 Regulation E amendment concerning overdraft. In 2020, the Bureau expects to conduct additional reviews pursuant to section 610 of the RFA, including a review of the Regulation Z rules that implement the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009.
Finally, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau is also continuing to monitor markets for consumer financial products and services to identify risks to consumers and the proper functioning of such markets. As
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Commission publishes its semiannual regulatory flexibility agenda in this document. The document also includes an agenda of regulatory actions that the Commission expects to be under development or review by the agency during the next year. This document meets the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866. The Commission welcomes comments on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
Comments should be received in the Division of the Secretariat on or before January 27, 2020.
Comments on the regulatory flexibility agenda should be captioned, “Regulatory Flexibility Agenda,” and be emailed to:
For further information on the agenda, in general, contact Adrienne Layton, Directorate for Health Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 to 612) contains several provisions intended to reduce unnecessary and disproportionate regulatory requirements on small businesses, small governmental organizations, and other small entities. Section 602 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 602) requires each agency to publish, twice each year, a regulatory flexibility agenda containing a brief description of the subject area of any rule expected to be proposed or promulgated, which is likely to have a “significant economic impact” on a “substantial number” of small entities. The agency must also provide a summary of the nature of the rule and a schedule for acting on each rule for which the agency has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking.
The regulatory flexibility agenda is required to contain the name and address of the agency official knowledgeable about the items listed. Furthermore, agencies are required to provide notice of their agendas to small entities and to solicit their comments by direct notification or by inclusion in publications likely to be obtained by such entities.
Additionally, Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to publish, twice each year, a regulatory agenda of regulations under development or review during the next year, and the executive order states that such an agenda may be combined with the agenda published in accordance with the RFA. The regulatory flexibility agenda lists the regulatory activities expected to be under development or review during the next 12 months. It includes all such activities, whether or not they may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This agenda also includes regulatory activities that appeared in the fall 2018 agenda and have been completed by the Commission prior to publication of this agenda. Although CPSC, as an independent regulatory agency, is not required to comply with Executive Orders, the Commission does follow Executive Order 12866 regarding the publication of its regulatory agenda.
The agenda contains a brief description and summary of each regulatory activity, including the objectives and legal basis for each; an approximate schedule of target dates, subject to revision, for the development or completion of each activity; and the name and telephone number of a knowledgeable agency official concerning particular items on the agenda.
The internet is the basic means through which the Unified Agenda is disseminated.
The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet.
The agenda reflects an assessment of the likelihood that the specified event will occur during the next year; the precise dates for each rulemaking are uncertain. New information, changes of circumstances, or changes in law may alter anticipated timing. In addition, no final determination by staff or the Commission regarding the need for, or the substance of, any rule or regulation should be inferred from this agenda.
In October 2016, staff delivered a briefing package with a draft notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to the Commission. In November 2016, the Commission voted to approve the NPRM. The notice was published in the
In 2018, two voluntary standards adopted different CO mitigation requirements intended to address the CO poisoning hazard associated with portable generators. In FY 2019 CPSC will solicit public comments on staff's plans to assess the effectiveness of those requirements through a
Federal Communications Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
Twice a year, in spring and fall, the Commission publishes in the
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Maura McGowan, Telecommunications Policy Specialist, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0990.
The Commission encourages public participation in its rulemaking process. To help keep the public informed of significant rulemaking proceedings, the Commission has prepared a list of important proceedings now in progress. The General Services Administration publishes the Unified Agenda in the
The following terms may be helpful in understanding the status of the proceedings included in this report:
Karen Schroeder, Attorney Advisor, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554,
Jerusha Burnett, Attorney Advisor, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC
This Report and Order updates the Commission's radiofrequency (RF) equipment authorization program to build on the success realized by its use of Commission-recognized Telecommunications Certification Bodies (TCBs). The rules the Commission is adopting will facilitate the continued rapid introduction of new and innovative products to the market while ensuring that these products do not cause harmful interference to each other or to other communications devices and services.
In the Report and Order, the Commission takes several steps to accommodate the long-term needs of wireless microphone users. Wireless microphones play an important role in enabling broadcasters and other video programming networks to serve consumers, including as they cover breaking news and live sports events. They enhance event productions in a variety of settings including theaters and music venues, film studios, conventions, corporate events, houses of worship, and internet webcasts. They also help create high-quality content that consumers demand and value. In particular, the Commission provides additional opportunities for wireless microphone operations in the TV bands following the upcoming incentive auction, and the Commission provides new opportunities for wireless microphone operations to access spectrum in other frequency bands where they can share use of the bands without harming existing users.
In the Order on Reconsideration, we address the four petitions for reconsideration of the Wireless Microphones R&O concerning licensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands, the 600 MHz duplex gap, and several other frequency bands, as well as three petitions for reconsideration of the TV bands part 15 R&O concerning unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands, the 600 MHz guard bands and duplex gap, and the 600 MHz service band. Because these petitions involve several overlapping technical and operational issues concerning wireless microphones, we consolidate our consideration of them in this one order.
In the Further Notice, we propose to permit certain professional theater, music, performing arts, or similar organizations that operate wireless microphones on an unlicensed basis and that meet certain criteria to obtain a part 74 license to operate in the TV bands (and the 600 MHz service band during the post-auction transition period), thereby allowing them to register in the white spaces databases for interference protection from unlicensed white space devices at venues where their events/productions are performed. In addition, we propose to permit these same users, based on demonstrated need, also to obtain a part 74 license to operate on other bands available for use by part 74 wireless microphone licensees, provided that they meet the applicable requirements for operating in those bands.
The NPRM proposes changes to improve disclosure of debris mitigation plans. The NPRM also makes proposals and seeks comment related to satellite disposal reliability and methodology, appropriate deployment altitudes in low-Earth-orbit, and on-orbit lifetime, with a particular focus on large NGSO satellite constellations. Other aspects of the NPRM include new rule proposals for geostationary orbit satellite (GSO) license term extension requests, and consideration of disclosure requirements related to several emerging technologies and new types of commercial operations, including rendezvous and proximity operations.
The FNPRM sought comment on three topics: (1) Issues related to the local simulcasting requirement, (2) whether to let broadcasters use vacant channels in the broadcast band, and (3) the import of the Next Gen standard on simulcasting stations.
The Sixth Report and Order granted certain small cable systems an exemption from the requirement to carry high-definition broadcast signals.
In May 2016, the Commission released a Report and Order, FNPRM, and Order on Reconsideration (see Dockets 11-82 and 15-80). The Order on Reconsideration addressed outage reporting for events at airports, and the FNPRM sought comment on database sharing. The Commission received comments and replies in August and September 2016.
The Spectrum Act requires that the incentive auction consist of a reverse auction “to determine the amount of compensation that each broadcast television licensee would accept in return for voluntarily relinquishing some or all of its spectrum usage rights and a forward auction” that would allow mobile broadband providers to bid for licenses in the reallocated spectrum. Broadcast television licensees who elected to voluntarily participate in the auction had three basic options: Voluntarily go off the air, share spectrum, or move channels in exchange for receiving part of the proceeds from auctioning that spectrum to wireless providers.
In June 2014, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that laid out the general framework for the incentive auction. The incentive auction started on March 29, 2016, with the submission of initial commitments by eligible broadcast licensees that had submitted timely and complete applications. The incentive auction officially ended on April 13, 2017, with the release of the Auction Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice that also marked the start of the 39-month transition period during which full power and Class A television stations will transition their stations to their post-auction channel assignments in the reorganized television bands. Pursuant to Congress' directive, the Commission will reimburse those stations for the reasonable costs associated with relocating to their post-auction channel assignments and will reimburse multichannel video programming distributors for their costs associated with continuing to carry the signals of those stations.
The March 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 115-141, 132 Stat. 348 (2018)) authorizes the Commission to reimburse eligible entities for costs associated with the post-incentive auction transition through July 3, 2023, and also directed the Commission to reimburse costs reasonably incurred by low-power television stations, TV translator stations, and FM broadcast stations as a result of the post-auction reorganization of the television band. The Commission
In the Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on a process for wireless providers to disable contraband wireless devices once they have been identified. The Commission also seeks comment on additional methods and technologies that might prove successful in combating contraband device use in correctional facilities, and on various other proposals related to the authorization process for CISs and their deployment.
The Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order addressed several Petitions for Reconsideration submitted in response to the Report and Order and resolved the outstanding issues raised in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The 2017 NPRM sought comment on limited changes to the rules governing Priority Access Licenses in the band, adjacent channel emissions limits, and public release of base station registration information.
In the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NRO First Report and Order), released on March 31, 2000, the Commission adopted a mandatory utilization data reporting requirement, a uniform set of categories of numbers for which carriers must report their utilization, and a utilization threshold framework to increase carrier accountability and incentives to use numbers efficiently. In addition, the Commission adopted a single system for allocating numbers in blocks of 1,000, rather than 10,000, wherever possible, and established a plan for national rollout of thousands-block number pooling. The Commission also adopted numbering resource reclamation requirements to ensure that unused numbers are returned to the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) inventory for assignment to other carriers. Also, to encourage better management of numbering resources, carriers are required, to the extent possible, to first assign numbering resources within thousands blocks (a form of sequential numbering).
In the NRO Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted a measure that requires all carriers to use at least 60 percent of their numbering resources before they may get additional numbers in a particular area. That 60 percent utilization threshold increases to 75 percent over the next three years. The Commission also established a 5-year term for the national pooling administrator and an auditing program to verify carrier compliance with the Commission's rules. Furthermore, the Commission declined to amend the existing Federal rules for area code relief or specify any new Federal guidelines for the implementation of area code relief. The Commission also declined to state a preference for either all-services overlays or geographic splits as a method of area code relief. Regarding mandatory nationwide 10-digit dialing, the Commission declined to adopt this measure at the present time. Furthermore, the Commission declined to mandate nationwide expansion of the “D digit” (the “N” of an NXX or central office code) to include zero or one, or to grant State commissions the authority to implement the expansion of the “D” digit as a numbering resource optimization measure presently.
In the NRO Third Report and Order, the Commission addressed national thousands-block number pooling administration issues, including declining to alter the implementation date for covered CMRS carriers to participate in pooling. The Commission also addressed Federal cost recovery for national thousands-block number pooling, and continued to require States to establish cost recovery mechanisms for costs incurred by carriers
In NRO Third Order on Recon in CC Docket No. 99-200, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99-200, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No, 95-116, the Commission reversed its clarification that those requirements extend to all carriers in the largest 100 MSAs, regardless of whether they have received a request from another carrier to provide LNP. The Commission also sought comment on whether the Commission should again extend the LNP requirements to all carriers in the largest 100 MSAs, regardless of whether they receive a request to provide LNP. The Commission also sought comment on whether all carriers in the top 100 MSAs should be required to participate in thousands-block number pooling, regardless of whether they are required to be LNP capable. In addition, the Commission sought comment on whether all MSAs included in Combined Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs) on the Census Bureau's list of the largest 100 MSAs should be included on the Commission's list of the top 100 MSAs.
In the NRO Fourth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission reaffirmed that carriers must deploy LNP in switches within the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) for which another carrier has made a specific request for the provision of LNP. The Commission delegated the authority to State commissions to require carriers operating within the largest 100 MSAs that have not received a specific request for LNP from another carrier to provide LNP, under certain circumstances and on a case-by-case basis. The Commission concluded that all carriers, except those specifically exempted, are required to participate in thousands-block number pooling in accordance with the national rollout schedule, regardless of whether they are required to provide LNP, including commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers that were required to deploy LNP as of November 24, 2003. The Commission specifically exempted from the pooling requirement rural telephone companies and Tier III CMRS providers that have not received a request to provide LNP. The Commission also exempted from the pooling requirement carriers that are the only service provider receiving numbering resources in a given rate center. Additionally, the Commission sought further comment on whether these exemptions should be expanded to include carriers where there are only two service providers receiving numbering resources in the rate center. Finally, the Commission reaffirmed that the 100 largest MSAs are identified in the 1990 U.S. Census reports, as well as those areas included on any subsequent U.S. Census report of the 100 largest MSAs.
In the NRO Order and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission granted petitions for delegated authority to implement mandatory thousands-block pooling filed by the Public Service Commission of West Virginia, the Nebraska Public Service Commission, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the Michigan Public Service Commission, and the Missouri Public Service Commission. In granting these petitions, the Commission permitted these States to optimize numbering resources and further extend the life of the specific numbering plan areas. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission sought comment on whether it should delegate authority to all States to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling consistent with the parameters set forth in the NRO Order.
In its 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed to allow interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VOIP) providers to obtain telephone numbers directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator and the Pooling Administrator, subject to certain requirements. The Commission also sought comment on a forward-looking approach to numbers for other types of providers and uses, including telematics and public safety, and the benefits and number exhaust risks of granting providers other than interconnected VoIP providers direct access.
In its 2015 Report and Order, the Commission established an authorization process to enable interconnected VoIP providers that choose to obtain access to North American Numbering Plan telephone numbers directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator and/or the Pooling Administrator (Numbering Administrators), rather than through intermediaries. The Order also set forth several conditions designed to minimize number exhaust and preserve the integrity of the numbering system. Specifically, the Commission required interconnected VoIP providers obtaining numbers to comply with the same requirements applicable to carriers seeking to obtain numbers. The requirements included any State requirements pursuant to numbering authority delegated to the States by the Commission, as well as industry guidelines and practices, among others. The Commission also required interconnected VoIP providers to comply with facilities readiness requirements adapted to this context, and with numbering utilization and optimization requirements. In addition, as conditions to requesting and obtaining numbers directly from the Numbering Administrators, the Commission required interconnected VoIP providers to (1) provide the relevant State commissions with regulatory and numbering contacts when requesting numbers in those States, (2) request numbers from the Numbering Administrators under their own unique OCN, (3) file any requests for numbers with the relevant State commissions at least 30 days prior to requesting numbers from the Numbering Administrators, and (4) provide customers with the opportunity to
In 2016, the Commission issued a Report and Order extending the separations freeze for an additional 18 months until January 1, 2018. In 2017, the Joint Board issued a Recommended Decision recommending changes to the part 36 rules designed to harmonize them with the Commission's previous amendments to its part 32 accounting rules. In February 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing amendments to part 36 consistent with the Joint Board's recommendations. In October 2018, the Commission issued a Report and Order adopting each of the Joint Board's recommendations and amending the Part 36 consistent with those recommendations. In July 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to extend the separations freeze for an additional 15 years and to provide rate-of-return carriers that had elected to freeze their category relationships a time limited opportunity to opt out of that freeze. In December 2018, the Commission issued a Report and Order extending the freeze for up to 6 years until December 31, 2024, and granting rate-of-return carriers that had elected to freeze their category relationships a one-time opportunity to opt out of that freeze.
On May 4, 2018, USTelecom filed a forbearance petition in which it sought forbearance from, among other things, obligations under section 272 of the Communications Act, including special
The Commission has sought comment on the USTelecom petition—Petition of USTelecom for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 160(c) to Accelerate Investment in Broadband and Next-Generation Networks, WC Docket No. 18-141, Order, DA 18-574 (June 1, 2018).
Comments and oppositions were due June 7, 2018, and replies by June 22, 2018 (DA18-475). These dates were extended until August 6, 2018, and September 5, 2018 (DA-18-574). The Commission extended the date by which the petition would be deemed granted in the absence of a Commission decision that the petition fails to meet the standards for forbearance under section 10(a) of the Act by 90 days until August 2, 2019. (DA 19-75).
The Commission terminated these two information collections. See Petition of USTelecom for Forbearance Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 160(c) to Accelerate Investment in Broadband and Next-Generation Networks, Memorandum Opinion and Order, WC Docket No. 18-141, FCC 19-31 (April 15, 2019).
In the Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation Requirements First Report and Order and a further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released on May 13, 2009, the Commission reduced the porting interval for simple wireline and simple intermodal port requests, requiring all entities subject to its local number portability (LNP) rules to complete simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal port requests within one business day. In a related further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission sought comment on what further steps, if any, the Commission should take to improve the process of changing providers.
In the LNP Standard Fields Order, released on May 20, 2010, the Commission adopted standardized data fields for simple wireline and intermodal ports. The Order also adopts the NANC's recommendations for porting process provisioning flows and for counting a business day in the context of number porting.
The Fourth RCC Order completed the Commission's implementation of the RCC Act by adopting service quality standards for intermediate providers, as well as an exception to those standards for intermediate providers that qualify for the covered provider safe harbor in our existing rules. The Order also set forth procedures to enforce our intermediate provider requirements. Finally, the Fourth RCC Order adopted provisions to sunset the rural call completion data recording and retention requirements adopted in the First RCC Order one year after the effective date of the new intermediate provider service quality standards.
On June 13, 2017, the D.C. Circuit vacated the rate caps adopted in the Second Report and Order, as well as reporting requirements related to video visitation. The court held that the Commission lacked jurisdiction over intrastate ICS calls and that the rate caps the Commission adopted for interstate calls were arbitrary and capricious. The court also remanded the Commission's caps on ancillary fees. On September 26, 2017, the court denied a petition for rehearing en banc. On December 21, 2017, the court issued two separate orders: One vacating the 2016 Order on Reconsideration insofar as it purports to set rate caps on inmate calling services, and one dismissing as moot challenges to the Commission's First Report and Order on ICS.
On February 23, 2017, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that revised the part 32 USOA to substantially reduce accounting burdens for both price cap and rate-of-return carriers. First, the Order streamlines the USOA for all carriers. In addition, the USOA will be aligned more closely with generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP. Second, the Order allows price cap carriers to use GAAP for all regulatory accounting purposes as long as they comply with targeted accounting rules, which are designed to mitigate any impact on pole attachment rates. Alternatively, price cap carriers can elect to use GAAP accounting for all purposes other than those associated with pole attachment rates and continue to use the part 32 accounts for pole attachment rates for up to 12 years. Third, the Order addresses several miscellaneous issues, including referral to the Federal-State Joint Board on Separations the issue of examining jurisdictional separations rules in light of the reforms adopted to part 32.
On November 16, 2017, the Commission adopted a Report and Order (R&O), Declaratory Ruling, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Wireline Infrastructure Order) that takes a number of actions and seeks comment on further actions designed to accelerate the deployment of next-generation networks and services through removing barriers to infrastructure investment.
The Wireline Infrastructure Order took a number of actions. First, the Report and Order revised the pole attachment rules to reduce costs for
On June 7, 2018, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order (Wireline Infrastructure Second Report and Order) taking further actions designed to expedite the transition from legacy networks and services to next generation networks and advanced services that benefit the American public and to promote broadband deployment by further streamlining the section 214(a) discontinuance rules, network change disclosure processes, and part 68 customer notification process.
The Wireline Infrastructure NPRM, NOI, and RFC sought comment on additional issues not addressed in the November Wireline Infrastructure Order or the June Wireline Infrastructure Second Report and Order. It sought comment on changes to the Commission's pole attachment rules to: (1) Streamline the timeframe for gaining access to utility poles; (2) reduce charges paid by attachers for work done to make a pole ready for new attachments; and (3) establish a formula for computing the maximum pole attachment rate that may be imposed on an incumbent LEC.
The Wireline Infrastructure NPRM, NOI, and RFC also sought comment on whether the Commission should enact rules, consistent with its authority under section 253 of the Act, to promote the deployment of broadband infrastructure by preempting State and local laws that inhibit broadband deployment. It also sought comment on whether there are State laws governing the maintenance or retirement of copper facilities that serve as a barrier to deploying next-generation technologies and services that the Commission might seek to preempt.
Previously, in November 2014, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling that: (1) Proposed new backup power rules; (2) proposed new or revised rules for copper retirements and service discontinuances; and (3) adopted a functional test in determining what constitutes a service for purposes of section 214(a) discontinuance review. In August 2015, the Commission adopted a Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that: (i) Lengthened and revised the copper retirement process; (ii) determined that a carrier must obtain Commission approval before discontinuing a service used as a wholesale input if the carrier's actions will discontinue service to a carrier-customer's retail end users; (iii) adopted an interim rule requiring incumbent LECs that seek to discontinue certain TDM-based wholesale services to commit to certain rates, terms, and conditions; (iv) proposed further revisions to the copper retirement discontinuance process; and (v) upheld the November 2014 Declaratory Ruling. In July 2016, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Order on Reconsideration that: (i) Adopted a new test for obtaining streamlined treatment when carriers seek Commission authorization to discontinue legacy services in favor of services based on newer technologies; (ii) set forth consumer education requirements for carriers seeking to discontinue legacy services in favor of services based on newer technologies; (iii) allowed notice to customers of discontinuance applications by email; (iv) required carriers to provide notice of discontinuance applications to Tribal entities; (v) made a technical rule change to create a new title for copper retirement notices and certifications; and (vi) harmonized the timeline for competitive LEC discontinuances caused by incumbent LEC network changes.
On August 2, 2018, the Commission adopted a Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling (Wireline Infrastructure Third Report and Order) establishing a new framework for the vast majority of pole attachments governed by Federal law by instituting a one-touch make-ready regime, in which a new attacher may elect to perform all simple work to prepare a pole for new wireline attachments in the communications space. This new framework includes safeguards to promote coordination among parties and ensures that new attachers perform work safely and reliably. The Commission retained its multi-party pole attachment process for attachments that are complex or above the communications space of a pole, but made significant modifications to speed deployment, promote accurate billing, expand the use of self-help for new attachers when attachment deadlines are missed, and reduce the likelihood of coordination failures that lead to unwarranted delays. The Commission also improved its pole attachment rules by codifying and redefining Commission precedent that requires utilities to allow attachers to overlash existing wires, thus maximizing the usable space on the pole; eliminating outdated disparities between the pole attachment rates that incumbent carriers must pay compared to other similarly-situated cable and telecommunications attachers; and clarifying that the Commission will preempt, on an expedited case-by-case basis, State and local laws that inhibit the rebuilding or restoration of broadband infrastructure after a disaster. The Commission also adopted a Declaratory Ruling that interpreted section 253(a) of the Communications Act to prohibit State and local express and
The Order requires interconnected VoIP providers obtaining numbers to comply with the same requirements applicable to carriers seeking to obtain numbers. These requirements include any State requirements pursuant to numbering authority delegated to the States by the Commission, as well as industry guidelines and practices, among others. The Order also requires interconnected VoIP providers to comply with facilities readiness requirements adapted to this context, and with numbering utilization and optimization requirements. As conditions to requesting and obtaining numbers directly from the numbering administrators, interconnected VoIP providers are also required to: (1) Provide the relevant State commissions with regulatory and numbering contacts when requesting numbers in those states; (2) request numbers from the numbering administrators under their own unique OCN; (3) file any requests for numbers with the relevant State commissions at least 30 days prior to requesting numbers from the numbering administrators; and (4) provide customers with the opportunity to access all abbreviated dialing codes (N11 numbers) in use in a geographic area.
Finally, the Order also modifies Commission's rules in order to permit VoIP Positioning Center (VPC) providers to obtain pseudo-Automatic Number Identification (p-ANI) codes directly from the numbering administrators for purposes of providing E911 services.
The Universal Service Fund is paid for by contributions from telecommunications carriers, including wireline and wireless companies, and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, including cable companies that provide voice service, based on an assessment on their interstate and international end-user revenues. The Universal Service Administrative Company, or USAC, administers the four programs and collects monies for the Universal Service Fund under the direction of the FCC.
On April 19, 2018, the Commission decided the legacy support issue arising from the ongoing reform and modernization of the universal service fund and intercarrier compensation systems.
On May 29, 2018, the Commission approved additional funding to restore communications networks in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and sought comment on almost $900 million in long-term funding for network expansion.
On June 25, 2018, the Commission addressed the current funding shortfall in the Rural Healthcare Program by raising the annual program budget cap to $571 million.
On January 31, 2019, the Commission temporarily waived the E-Rate amortization requirement and proposed to eliminate the requirement.
By using an auction, the FCC will ensure that sought-after numbers are awarded to the parties that value them most. In addition, the FCC will reserve certain 833 numbers for distribution to government and non-profit entities that request them for public health and safety purposes. The FCC will study the results of the auction to determine how to best use the mechanism to distribute toll-free numbers equitably and efficiently in the future as well. Revenues from the auction will be used to defray the cost of toll-free numbering administration, reducing the cost of numbering for all users. The Order establishing the toll-free number auction will also authorize and accommodate the use of a secondary market for numbers awarded at auction to further distribute these numbers to the entities that value them most. The Order also adopted several definitional and technical updates to improve clarity and flexibility in toll-free number assignment.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Board is issuing this agenda under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Board's Statement of Policy Regarding Expanded Rulemaking Procedures. The Board anticipates having under consideration regulatory matters as indicated below during the period October 1, 2019, through March 31, 2020. The next agenda will be published in spring 2020.
Comments about the form or content of the agenda may be submitted any time during the next 6 months.
Comments should be addressed to Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
A staff contact for each item is indicated with the regulatory description below.
The Board is publishing its fall 2019 agenda as part of the Fall 2019 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agenda also identifies rules the Board has selected for review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and public comment is invited on those entries. The complete Unified Agenda will be available to the public at the following website:
The Board's agenda is divided into four sections. The first, Proposed Rule Stage, reports on matters the Board may consider for public comment during the next 6 months. The second section, Final Rule Stage, reports on matters that have been proposed and are under Board consideration. The third section, Long-Term Actions, reports on matters where the next action is undetermined, 00/00/0000, or will occur more than 12 months after publication of the Agenda. And a fourth section, Completed Actions, reports on regulatory matters the Board has completed or is not expected to consider further. A dot (•) preceding an entry indicates a new matter that was not a part of the Board's previous agenda.
Melissa Clark, Lead Financial Institution Policy Analyst, Federal Reserve System, Division of Supervision and Regulation, Washington, DC 20551,
Barbara Bouchard, Senior Associate Director, Federal Reserve System, Division of Supervision and Regulation, Washington, DC 20551,
Jay Schwarz, Special Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Claudia Von Pervieux, Senior Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Ian Spear, Manager, Federal Reserve System, Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems, Washington, DC 20551,
Claudia Von Pervieux, Senior Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
National Labor Relations Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The following agenda of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is published in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
The Board's agenda refers to
For further information concerning the regulatory actions listed in the agenda, contact Farah Z. Qureshi, Associate Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE, Washington, DC 20570; telephone 202-273-1949, TTY/TDD 1-800-315-6572; email
Roxanne Rothschild, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE, Washington, DC 20570,
Farah Qureshi, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE, Washington, DC 20570,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
We are publishing our semiannual regulatory agenda (the Agenda) in accordance with Public Law 96-354, “The Regulatory Flexibility Act,” and Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This Agenda issuance also contains our annual regulatory plan, which contains information on some of the more important regulatory actions that we are considering issuing in proposed or final form during Fiscal Year 2019. NRC's complete Agenda, available on the Office of Management and Budget's website at
Submit comments on rulemaking activities as identified in this Agenda by January 27, 2020.
Submit comments on any rulemaking activity in the Agenda by the date and methods specified in the
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Cindy Bladey, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3280; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0144 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
○ For completed rulemaking activities go to
○ For active rulemaking activities go to
○ For long-term rulemaking activities go to
Please include Docket ID NRC-2019-0144 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The Agenda is a compilation of all rulemaking activities on which an agency has recently completed action or has proposed or is considering action. The Agenda reports rulemaking activities in three major categories: Completed, active, and long-term. Completed rulemaking activities are those that were completed since publication of an agency's last Agenda; active rulemaking activities are those that an agency currently plans to have an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a Proposed Rule, or a Final Rule issued within the next 12 months; and long-term rulemaking activities are rulemaking activities under development but for which an agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months after publication of the current edition of the Unified Agenda.
The NRC assigns a “Regulation Identifier Number” (RIN) to a rulemaking activity when our Commission initiates a rulemaking and approves a rulemaking plan, or when the NRC staff begins work on a Commission delegated rulemaking that does not require a rulemaking plan. The Office of Management and Budget uses this number to track all relevant documents throughout the entire “lifecycle” of a particular rulemaking activity. The NRC reports all rulemaking activities in the Agenda that have been assigned a RIN and meet the definition
The information contained in this Agenda is updated to reflect any action that has occurred on a rulemaking activity since publication of our last Agenda on June 26, 2019 (84 FR 29780). Specifically, the information in this Agenda has been updated through July 26, 2019. The NRC provides additional information on planned rulemaking and petition for rulemaking activities, including priority and schedule, on our website at
The date for the next scheduled action under the heading “Timetable” is the date the next regulatory action for the rulemaking activity is scheduled to be published in the
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to conduct a review within 10 years of promulgation of those regulations that have or will have a
The comment period on the NRC's last Agenda (published on June 14, 2019 (84 FR 29780)) closed on July 24, 2019. We received one written comment expressing support for the NRC's semi-annual review.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is publishing the Chairman's agenda of rulemaking actions pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164) (Sep. 19, 1980). The items listed in the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for Fall 2019 reflect only the priorities of the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and do not necessarily reflect the view and priorities of any individual Commissioner.
Information in the agenda was accurate on August 7, 2019, the date on which the Commission's staff completed compilation of the data. To the extent possible, rulemaking actions by the Commission since that date have been reflected in the agenda. The Commission invites questions and public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
The Commission is now printing in the
The Commission's complete RFA agenda will be available online at
Comments should be received on or before January 27, 2020.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Mykaila DeLesDernier, Office of the General Counsel, 202-551-5129.
The RFA requires each Federal agency, twice each year, to publish in the
The following abbreviations for the acts administered by the Commission are used in the agenda:
The Commission invites public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
By the Commission.
Patrick Gilmore, Deputy Chief Accountant, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549,
Jennifer Porter, Division of Investment Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549,
Surface Transportation Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board is publishing the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for fall 2019.
A contact person is identified for each of the rules listed below.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
(1) A brief description of the subject area of any rule that the agency expects to propose or promulgate, which is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(2) A summary of the nature of any such rule under consideration for each subject area listed in the agenda pursuant to paragraph (1), the objectives and legal basis for the issuance of the rule, and an approximate schedule for completing action on any rule for which the agency has issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking; and
(3) The name and telephone number of an agency official knowledgeable about the items listed in paragraph (1).
Accordingly, a list of proceedings appears below containing information about subject areas in which the Board is currently conducting rulemaking proceedings or may institute such proceedings in the near future. It also contains information about existing regulations being reviewed to determine whether to propose modifications through rulemaking.
The agenda represents the Chairman's best estimate of rules that may be considered over the next 12 months, but does not necessarily reflect the views of any other individual Board Member. However, section 602(d) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 602(d), provides: “Nothing in [section 602] precludes an agency from considering or acting on any matter not included in a Regulatory Flexibility Agenda or requires an agency to consider or act on any matter listed in such agenda.”
The Chairman is publishing the agency's Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for fall 2019 as part of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Unified Agenda is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), pursuant to Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. The Board is participating voluntarily in the program to assist OMB and has included rulemaking proceedings in the Unified Agenda beyond those required by the RFA.
By the Board, Chairman Begeman.
Francis O'Connor, Section Chief, Chemical & Agricultural Transportation, Office of Economics, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001,