Census Bureau
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Institutes of Health
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
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.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”); Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice (“DOJ”)
Final rule; delay of effective date.
On December 23, 2020, DHS and DOJ (collectively, “the Departments”) published a final rule to clarify that the danger to the security of the United States statutory bar to eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal encompass certain emergency public health concerns and make certain other changes. The Departments are delaying the rule's effective date for 60 days.
As of January 21, 2021, the effective date of the final rule published at 85 FR 84160 (Dec. 23, 2020) is delayed until March 22, 2021.
For USCIS: Andrew Davidson, Asylum Division Chief, Refugee, Asylum and International Affairs Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS; telephone 240-721-3000 (not a toll-free call).
On December 23, 2020, the Departments published a final rule (“Security Bars rule”) to amend existing regulations to clarify that in certain circumstances there are “reasonable grounds for regarding [an] alien as a danger to the security of the United States” or “reasonable grounds to believe that [an] alien is a danger to the security of the United States” based on emergency public health concerns generated by a communicable disease, making the alien ineligible to be granted asylum in the United States under section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or the protection of withholding of removal under that Act or subsequent regulations (because of the threat of torture).
On January 20, 2021, the White House Chief of Staff issued a memorandum asking agencies to consider delaying, consistent with applicable law, the effective dates of any rules that have published and not yet gone into effect, for the purpose of allowing the President's appointees and designees to review questions of fact, law, and policy raised by those regulations.
The Departments have good cause to delay this rule's effective date without advance notice and comment because a permissible path to implementation of the rule is not apparent due to a preliminary injunction against a related rule. On December 11, 2020, the Departments issued a rule titled
Implementing the Security Bars rule will not be viable given this injunction. Most prominently, the Security Bars rule relies upon the framework for applying bars to asylum during credible fear processing that was established in the December 11 rule.
To implement the full Security Bars rule—and effectively reinsert or rely upon provisions that the
The Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, David P. Pekoske, having
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action removes the Class D airspace, establishes a Class E surface area, modifies the Class E airspace as an extension to the surface area and modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL at Northeast Wyoming Regional Airport, Gillette, WY. In addition, this action removes the VOR/DME from the legal description and replaces the outdated term Airport Facility/Directory with the term Chart Supplement. It also makes two minor administrative corrections noted in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM); the airport name is updated and the Class E surface area is identified as new airspace rather than amended airspace.
After being informed that the Airport Traffic Control Tower at Northeast Wyoming Regional Airport is closed permanently, the FAA found it necessary to create new airspace and amend the existing airspace for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at this airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, April 22, 2021. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email
Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-2245.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it removes the Class D, establishes a Class E surface area, modifies the Class E airspace as an extension to the surface area and modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL at Northeast Wyoming Regional Airport, Gillette, WY to support IFR operations.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The commenter was also concerned that issues related to possible effects on the entire airport, including civil aviation and the airport's overall safety, were not considered in the proposed rule. In addition, the commenter had questions regarding what standards and criteria were to be used in considering the effectiveness of the changes. The airspace design specialist establishes, modifies or revokes airspace based on criteria documented in FAA Orders by their Flight Standards Division and Airspace Policy Regulations Group. The specialist takes into account, as a prime consideration, the safety and efficiency of air traffic operations in consultation with local Air Traffic Control. In addition, the facility with jurisdiction over the airspace conducts and documents a safety risk analysis to
Additional concerns by the commenter included the lack of details on precautions for airspace changes amid a public health crisis. There is no face-to-face interaction required between FAA personnel and the airport management team so there is no increased risk due to the public health crisis.
Finally, the commenter identified the importance of considering both long-term and short-term environmental costs during the proposed rule to provide a comprehensive expectation of the costs for the public before the application phase of the rule. The proposal is reviewed for environmental impacts and extraordinary circumstances that might arise from the proposal. The FAA completed an environmental review and there are no significant environmental costs anticipated with the rule. It should be noted that the airspace does not define where aircraft can fly or do fly, it only defines specific equipment requirements and pilot responsibilities for each class of airspace.
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004 and 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020 and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by removing the Class D airspace and establishing a Class E surface area. The FAA is also modifying the Class E airspace as an extension to the Class E surface area and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL at Northeast Wyoming Regional Airport, Gillette, WY.
The FAA was informed that the Airport Traffic Control Tower at Northeast Wyoming Regional Airport is closed, which is a basic qualification for the establishment of Class D airspace. As a result, the FAA is removing the Class D airspace and establishing a Class E surface area at the airport. The Class E surface airspace is established at 5 miles to ensure departures are contained in the surface area until reaching 700 feet AGL.
The Class E airspace extending upward from the surface as an extension to the Class E surface area is expanded to 3.4 miles each side of the 170° bearing from 3 miles to 12 miles (formerly 12.2 miles) south of the airport. This adjustment will protect aircraft as they descend through 1,000 feet AGL, while using the RNAV and ILS approaches to runway 34.
The Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet is modified to within 4 miles each side of the 170° and 350° bearings (reduced from 6.1 miles east and 8.3 miles west) and extends 14 miles south (reduced from 15.3 miles) and 11 miles north (reduced from 16.1miles). The additional airspace is no longer needed to protect departing aircraft to 1,200 feet and arrivals as they descend through 1,500 feet AGL. This action removes the Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet as it is redundant with the Denver E6 airspace and no longer needed.
In addition, the use of the term Airport Facility/Directory is replaced with Chart Supplement and the legal descriptions for the Class E airspace extending upward from the surface as an extension to the Class E surface area and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet is rewritten to eliminate the use of the VOR/DME as a reference point. The VOR/DME is no longer needed to adequately describe the airspace.
Following publication of the NPRM in the
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 6,900 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of the Northeast Wyoming Regional Airport. This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.4 miles each side of the Northeast Wyoming Regional Airport 170° bearing extending from the 5-mile radius to 12 miles south of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth within 4 miles each side of the Northeast Wyoming Regional Airport 170° bearing extending from the 5-mile radius to 14 miles south of the airport, and that airspace 4 miles each side of the 350° bearing extending from the 5-mile radius to 11 miles north of the airport.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Final rule.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is amending the margin requirements for uncleared swaps (“Final Rule”) for swap dealers (“SD”) and major swap participants (“MSP”) for which there is not a prudential regulator (“CFTC Margin Rule”). The Final Rule amends the CFTC Margin Rule to permit the application of a minimum transfer amount (“MTA”) of up to $50,000 for each separately managed account (“SMA”) of a legal entity that is a counterparty to an SD or MSP in an uncleared swap transaction and to permit the application of separate MTAs for initial margin (“IM”) and variation margin (“VM”).
This Final Rule is effective February 24, 2021.
Joshua B. Sterling, Director, 202-418-6056,
In January 2016, the Commission adopted Regulations 23.150 through 23.161, namely the CFTC Margin Rule,
Regulations 23.152 and 23.153 require CSEs to collect or post, each business day, VM
To alleviate the operational burdens associated with making de minimis margin transfers without resulting in an unacceptable level of uncollateralized credit risk, Regulations 23.152(b)(3) and 23.153(c) provide that a CSE is not required to collect or post IM or VM with a counterparty until the combined amount of such IM and VM, as computed under Regulations 23.154 and 23.155 respectively, exceeds an MTA of $500,000.
During the implementation of the CFTC Margin Rule, market participants identified certain operational and compliance burdens associated with the application of the MTA. To mitigate these burdens, the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (“DSIO”) staff issued two no-action letters.
In February 2017, DSIO staff issued a no-action letter in response to a request for relief from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association's Asset Management Group (“SIFMA AMG”).
for Minimum Transfer Amount with respect to Separately Managed Accounts (Feb. 13, 2017) (“Letter 17-12”),
SIFMA AMG sought no-action relief on behalf of members—asset management firms whose clients include large institutional investors, such as pension plans and endowments, that hire asset managers to exercise investment discretion over portions of the clients' assets for management in SMAs—that enter into uncleared swaps with SDs that are registered with the Commission and are subject to the CFTC Margin Rule.
SIFMA AMG argued that the application of the MTA at the SMA owner or legal entity level presented significant practical challenges for SMAs that trade uncleared swaps with a single SD. SIFMA AMG stated that each SMA is governed by an investment management agreement that grants asset managers authority over a portion of their client's assets. An SD may face the same legal entity as a counterparty through multiple SMAs administered by different asset managers. Each SMA that trades derivatives typically has its own payment netting set corresponding to each International Swaps and Derivatives Association (“ISDA”) master agreement and credit support annex (“CSA”) used by an asset manager.
In December 2019, DSIO staff issued an additional no-action letter concerning the application of the MTA in response to a request for relief from ISDA on behalf of its member SDs.
In its request for no-action relief, ISDA stated that separate MTAs for IM and VM better reflect the operational requirements and the legal structure of the Commission's regulations, noting that the CFTC Margin Rule requires IM to be segregated with an unaffiliated third party, while not imposing similar segregation requirements with respect to VM. ISDA asserted that, as a result, distinct workflows have been established for the settlement of IM through custodians and tri-party agents that are completely separate from the settlement process for VM.
Swap market participants, including a subcommittee established by the CFTC's Global Markets Advisory Committee (“GMAC Subcommittee”), expressed support for the adoption of regulations consistent with the no-action letters, noting that Letter 19-25, in particular, is time-limited and, more generally, the codification of no-action positions can be beneficial in that it can provide certainty to market participants with respect to the application of the Commission's regulations.
Consistent with this feedback, the Commission has expressed the view that adopting regulations in accordance with the terms of no-action letters, where feasible, can facilitate efforts by market participants to take the operation of the Commission's regulations into account in planning their uncleared swap activities. Accordingly, based on its experience implementing the CFTC Margin Rule and the administration of Letters 17-12 and 19-25, the Commission decided to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (“Proposal”) to amend the CFTC Margin Rule consistent with the staff positions set forth in those no-action letters, and to request comments on the Proposal.
The Commission received six comment letters, all of which expressed support for the Proposal.
The comments confirm the rationale articulated for the Proposal. As such, the Commission is adopting the amendments to Regulations 23.151, 23.152(b)(3), 23.153(c) and 23.158(a), as proposed.
The Commission is adopting the proposed amendment to the definition of MTA in Regulation 23.151 to allow a CSE to apply an MTA of up to $50,000 to each SMA owned by a counterparty with whom the CSE enters into uncleared swaps. The amendment is consistent with the terms of Letter 17-12, which provides that DSIO would not recommend enforcement action if an SD applies an MTA no greater than $50,000 to each SMA of a legal entity, subject to certain conditions.
As discussed in the Proposal, when the Commission adopted the CFTC Margin Rule, it rejected the notion that SMAs of a legal entity should be treated separately from each other in applying certain aspects of the margin requirements for uncleared swaps.
The Commission notes, as discussed in the Proposal, that certain owners of SMAs, such as pension funds, in administering investments for beneficiaries, may engage in collateral management exercises and may have the capability to aggregate collateral across their SMAs. As such, a beneficial owner may be able to aggregate the MTA across its SMAs that trade with a particular CSE and centralize the management of collateral for the SMAs, which may result in increased netting among the SMAs and the CSE, and more efficient collateral management. However, the Commission points out that other SMA owners may not have such capability because, as noted in the GMAC Subcommittee Report, the SMA owners may not be able to coordinate trading activity across their SMAs, given that they typically grant full investment discretion to their asset managers and do not employ a centralized collateral manager in-house.
In theory, while asset managers could coordinate with each other the calculation of the MTA across SMAs under their management, the Commission believes that accepted market practice may preclude the sharing of information among asset managers. In this regard, the Commission notes that the GMAC Subcommittee Report stated that owners of SMAs typically prohibit information sharing among their SMAs and require asset managers to keep trading information confidential, with the result that asset managers lack transparency and control over the assets of the SMA owner other than the specific assets under their management.
The Commission requested comment on the feasibility of coordination among asset managers. Several commenters, consistent with the GMAC Subcommittee Report's findings, indicated that confidentiality requirements and logistical impediments prevent asset managers from aggregating IM and VM obligations across SMAs for purposes of determining whether the MTA threshold has been exceeded, rendering the application of a single MTA across SMAs impractical.
Likewise, the Commission believes that confidentiality requirements may also preclude communications between a CSE and individual asset managers of SMAs of an owner concerning the owner's overall trading activity. As discussed in the GMAC Subcommittee Report, a duty of confidentiality to the legal entity may prevent a CSE from sharing information across the asset managers of SMAs of a legal entity.
In light of the practical challenges that the calculation of the MTA across SMAs poses, as described above, the Commission is amending Regulation 23.151 to allow CSEs to apply an MTA of up to $50,000 for each SMA of a counterparty. The Commission notes, however, that under this application of the MTA to SMAs, as adopted, an MTA of up to $50,000 could be applied to an indefinite number of SMAs. This application of the MTA would effectively replace the aggregate limit of $500,000 for a particular counterparty's uncollateralized risk for uncleared swaps with an individual limit of $50,000 for each SMA of such counterparty. In turn, the counterparty could have an aggregate amount of uncollateralized risk in excess of $500,000.
This application of the MTA to SMAs could incentivize owners of SMAs to create separate accounts by formulating trading strategies to reduce or avoid margin transfers. However, the Commission believes that the inability to net collateral across separate accounts would stem the indiscriminate creation of SMAs
Several commenters agreed with the Commission's view that the potential
The Commission further notes that there are other provisions in the CEA and the Commission's regulations that would mitigate the increase in uncollateralized credit risk resulting from the absence of an aggregate limit in the MTA. Specifically, section 4s(j)(2) of the CEA requires CSEs to adopt a robust and professional risk management system adequate for the management of their swap activities,
The Commission is also amending Regulation 23.151 to add a definition for the term SMA. The new definition of SMA uses the definition of the term set forth in Letter 17-12. As adopted, the term SMA is defined as an account of a counterparty to a CSE that is managed by an asset manager pursuant to a specific grant of authority to such asset manager under an investment management agreement between the counterparty and the asset manager, with respect to a specified portion of the counterparty's assets.
The definition of SMA is designed to limit the application of the MTA, as prescribed by the Final Rule, to SMAs that have dedicated netting sets under the SMAs' ISDA master agreements and CSAs, or are otherwise precluded from netting collateral across SMAs, and that are administered by asset managers with authority that is limited to assets specifically under their management. The Commission notes that the limited authority of asset managers over the assets of a legal entity and the practical inability to net collateral payments across SMAs pose obstacles in the calculation and aggregation of the MTA across SMAs that this Final Rule is designed to address.
The Commission is revising the margin documentation requirements outlined in Regulation 23.158(a), consistent with Letter 19-25, to recognize that a CSE can apply separate MTAs for IM and VM with each counterparty in determining whether IM or VM or both must be posted or collected with a counterparty under Regulation 23.152 (requiring CSEs to exchange IM with a counterparty) or Regulation 23.153 (requiring CSEs to exchange VM with a counterparty). Regulation 23.158(a), as amended, states that if a CSE and its counterparty agree to have separate MTAs for IM and VM, the MTAs corresponding to IM and VM must be specified in the margin documentation required by Regulation 23.158, and the MTAs, on a combined basis, must not exceed the MTA specified in Regulation 23.151.
The Commission believes that the amendment to Regulation 23.158(a) accommodates a widespread market practice that facilitates the implementation of the CFTC margin requirements. In administering the application of the MTA, including the issuance of Letter 19-25, the Commission has recognized that, as a practical matter, CSEs and their counterparties maintain separate settlement workflows for IM and VM and agree to separate MTAs in each of their IM and VM CSAs, which, combined, do not exceed $500,000. These separate settlement workflows for IM and VM reflect, from an operational perspective, the different segregation requirements applicable to IM and VM under the CFTC Margin Rule.
The Commission acknowledges that the amendment to Regulation 23.158(a) may result in the exchange of less margin than the amount that would be exchanged if the MTA were computed on an aggregate basis.
The Commission believes, consistent with the views expressed by DSIO staff in issuing Letter 19-25, that the application of separate MTAs for IM and VM, subject to certain conditions, will
A number of commenters confirmed the Commission's understanding that the application of separate MTAs for IM and VM facilitates compliance with the CFTC Margin Rule.
Several commenters expressed support for extending the application of separate MTAs for IM and VM to SMAs for which an MTA of up to $50,000 would be applicable, noting that the stated rationale for proposing the revisions to Regulation 23.158(a) applies equally to SMAs and that allowing such application would establish a consistent regulatory approach to applying MTA thresholds.
Consistent with the amendment to the definition of MTA in Regulation 23.151, the Commission is adopting conforming changes to Regulations 23.152(b)(3) and 23.153(c) by replacing “$500,000” with “the minimum transfer amount, as the term is defined in 23.151.” The changes replace the reference to $500,000 in current Regulations 23.152(b)(3) and 23.153(c), which effectively limits the MTA to $500,000, with a reference to the revised definition of MTA, which allows for the application of an MTA of up to $50,000 for each SMA.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires Federal agencies to consider whether the rules they propose will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the Final Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”)
Section 15(a) of the CEA
The Commission is amending Regulation 23.151 consistent with Letter 17-12. The Commission is revising the definition of MTA in Regulation 23.151 to permit CSEs to apply an MTA of up to $50,000 for each SMA of a counterparty that enters into uncleared swaps with a CSE. The Commission also is amending Regulation 23.151 to add a definition for the term SMA (or separately managed account). The Commission is also revising Regulation 23.158(a) consistent with Letter 19-25 to state that if a CSE and its counterparty agree to have separate MTAs for IM and VM, the respective amounts of MTA must be reflected in the margin documentation required by Regulation 23.158(a). Finally, the Commission is adopting conforming
The baseline for the Commission's consideration of the costs and benefits of this Final Rule is the CFTC Margin Rule. The Commission recognizes that to the extent market participants have relied on Letters 17-12 and 19-25, the actual costs and benefits of the amendments, as realized in the market, may not be as significant.
The Commission notes that the consideration of costs and benefits below is based on the understanding that the markets function internationally, with many transactions involving U.S. firms taking place across international boundaries; with some Commission registrants being organized outside of the United States; with leading industry members typically conducting operations both within and outside the United States; and with industry members commonly following substantially similar business practices wherever located. Where the Commission does not specifically refer to matters of location, the following discussion of costs and benefits refers to the effects of the Final Rule on all activity subject to the amended regulations, whether by virtue of the activity's physical location in the United States or by virtue of the activity's connection with activities in, or effect on, U.S. commerce under section 2(i) of the CEA.
As previously discussed, the Commission received six comment letters expressing support for the Proposal. Commenters generally noted that the proposed amendments are beneficial for market participants and characterized them as helpful and practical accommodations that reflect the realities of the marketplace and facilitate compliance with the CFTC Margin Rule. Several commenters elaborated on specific benefits of the amendments, noting for instance that the amendments would eliminate burdens associated with the application of a single MTA across SMAs of a counterparty, provide regulatory certainty and contribute to global consistency in regulatory standards. Some commenters also addressed concerns that the Commission had raised in the Proposal, pointing out mitigating factors.
The amendments to Regulation 23.151 allow CSEs to apply an MTA of up to $50,000 to SMAs of a counterparty. Under the current requirements, a CSE must apply the MTA with respect to each counterparty to an uncleared transaction. As a result, in the context of a counterparty that has multiple SMAs through which uncleared swaps are traded, with each SMA potentially giving rise to IM and VM obligations, the amounts of IM and VM attributable to the SMAs of the counterparty must be aggregated to determine whether the MTA has been exceeded, which would require the exchange of IM or VM.
As previously discussed, because the assets of SMAs are separately held, transferred, and returned at the account level, and CSEs and SMA asset managers do not share trading information across SMAs, aggregation of IM and VM obligations across SMAs for the purpose of determining whether the MTA has been exceeded may be impractical, hindering efforts to comply with the CFTC Margin Rule. The Commission acknowledges, however, the possibility that, in certain contexts, an owner of SMAs, such as a pension fund that administers investments for beneficiaries, may be set up to perform collateral management exercises and may have the capability to aggregate collateral across SMAs. Nevertheless, according to industry feedback, the only practical alternative to fully ensure compliance with the margin requirements is to set the MTA for each SMA at zero, so that trading by a given SMA does not result in an inadvertent breach of the aggregate MTA threshold without the exchange of the required margin.
The amendments to Regulation 23.151, by allowing the application of an MTA of up to $50,000 for each SMA of a counterparty, will ease the operational burdens and transactional costs associated with managing frequent transfers of small amounts of collateral that counterparties would incur if the MTA for SMAs were to be set at zero. In addition, the amendments give flexibility to CSEs, owners of SMAs, and asset managers to negotiate MTA levels within the regulatory limits that match the risks of the SMAs and their investment strategies, and the uncleared swaps being traded.
Furthermore, because the amendments to Regulation 23.151 simplify the application of the MTA in the SMA context, thereby reducing the operational burden, market participants may be encouraged to participate in the uncleared swap markets through managed accounts, and account managers may also make their services more readily available to clients. As a result, trading in the uncleared swap markets may increase, promoting competition and liquidity.
The amendment of Regulation 23.158(a) could likewise lead to efficiencies in the application of the MTA. The amendment, as adopted, states that if a CSE and its counterparty agree to have separate MTAs for IM and VM, the respective amounts of MTA must be reflected in the margin documentation required by Regulation 23.158(a). CSEs will thus be able to maintain separate margin settlement workflows for IM and VM to address the differing segregation treatments for IM and VM under the CFTC Margin Rule.
The Commission notes that the application of separate MTAs for IM and VM has been adopted in other jurisdictions, including the European Union, and the practice is widespread. The amendments, by aligning the CFTC with other jurisdictions with respect to the application of the MTA, advance the CFTC's goal of promoting consistent international standards, in line with the statutory mandate set forth in the Dodd-Frank Act.
Finally, the amendments, as adopted, provide certainty to market participants who may have relied on Letters 17-12 and 19-25, and could thereby facilitate their efforts to take the operation of the Commission's regulations into account in the planning of their uncleared swap activities.
The amendments to Regulation 23.151 could result in a CSE applying an MTA that exceeds, in the aggregate, the current MTA limit of $500,000. That is because the amendments, as adopted, permit the application of an MTA of up to $50,000 for each SMA of a counterparty, without limiting the number of SMAs to which the $50,000 threshold may be applied. The amendments thus could incentivize SMA owners to increase the number of separate accounts in order to benefit from the higher MTA limit. As a result, the collection and posting of margin for some SMAs may be delayed, since margin will not need to be exchanged until the MTA threshold is exceeded, which could result in the exchange of less collateral to mitigate the risk of uncleared swaps.
The amendment to Regulation 23.158(a), as adopted, states that if a CSE and its counterparty agree to have separate MTAs for IM and VM, the respective amounts of MTA must be reflected in the margin documentation
While the Commission recognizes that the uncollateralized exposure that may result from amending Regulations 23.151 and 23.158(a), in line with Letters 17-12 and 19-25, could increase credit risk associated with uncleared swaps, the Commission believes that a number of safeguards exist to mitigate this risk. The Commission notes that the amendments, as adopted, set the MTA at low levels. When the MTA is applied to a counterparty, the sum of the IM and VM MTAs must not exceed $500,000. When the MTA is applied to an SMA of a counterparty, the sum of the IM and VM MTAs must not exceed $50,000. In particular with respect to the application of the MTA to SMAs, the low level of the MTA may dampen the incentive to create additional SMAs to benefit from the potentially higher MTA threshold given the inability to net collateral across SMAs under the Final Rule. Several commenters confirmed the Commission's assessment and some added that the burdens and costs of creating and maintaining separate accounts would likely override the benefits of any marginal increase in MTA.
In light of the foregoing, the CFTC has evaluated the costs and benefits of the Final Rule pursuant to the five considerations identified in section 15(a) of the CEA as follows:
As discussed above, the amendments to Regulations 23.151 and 23.158(a), which address the application of the MTA to SMAs and the application of separate MTAs for IM and VM, remove practical burdens in the application of the MTA, facilitating the implementation of the CFTC Margin Rule, with minimal impact on the protection of market participants and the public in general. Although the amendments, as adopted, could result in larger amounts of MTA being applied to uncleared swaps, potentially resulting in the exchange of reduced margin to offset the risk of uncleared swaps, the impact is likely to be negligible relative to the size of the uncleared swap positions. The Commission notes that the MTA thresholds are set at low levels. In addition, CSEs are required to monitor and manage risk associated with their swaps, in particular credit risk, and to set tolerance levels as part of the risk management program mandated by Regulation 23.600. To meet the risk tolerance levels, a CSE may contractually limit the MTA or the number of SMAs for a particular counterparty with whom the CSE enters into uncleared swap transactions.
By amending Regulation 23.151 to allow CSEs to apply an MTA of up to $50,000 for each SMA of a counterparty, the Commission eliminates burdens and practical challenges associated with the computation and aggregation of the MTA across multiple SMAs. In addition, the new MTA threshold for SMAs could have the effect of delaying how soon margin would be exchanged, as the aggregate MTA for SMAs is no longer limited to $500,000.
The simplification of the process for applying the MTA to SMAs and the reduced cost that may be realized from the deferral of margin obligations may encourage market participants to enter into uncleared swaps through accounts managed by asset managers and also encourage asset managers to accept more clients. The amendments to Regulation 23.151 could therefore foster competitiveness by encouraging increased participation in the uncleared swap markets.
The amendment to Regulation 23.158(a) states that if a CSE and its counterparty agree to have separate MTAs for IM and VM, the respective amounts of MTA must be reflected in the margin documentation required by Regulation 23.158(a). The amendment recognizes that CSEs can apply separate MTAs for IM and VM, enabling CSEs to accommodate the different segregation treatments for IM and VM under the CFTC's margin requirements and to more efficiently comply with the CFTC Margin Rule.
The amendments to Regulations 23.151 and 23.158(a) could have the overall effect of permitting larger amounts of MTA being applied to uncleared swaps, resulting in the collection and posting of less collateral to offset the risk of uncleared swaps, which could undermine the integrity of the markets. The Commission, however, believes that the uncollateralized swap exposure will be limited given that the MTA thresholds are set at low levels, and there are other built-in regulatory safeguards, such as the requirement that CSEs establish a risk management program under Regulation 23.600 that provides for the implementation of internal risk parameters for the monitoring and management of swap risk.
The Commission also notes that the amendments provide certainty to market participants who may have relied on Letters 17-12 and 19-25, and thereby facilitate their efforts to take the operation of the Commission's regulations into account in planning their uncleared swap activities.
The amendments to Regulations 23.151 and 23.158(a) simplify the process for applying the MTA, reducing the burden and cost of implementation. Given these cost savings, CSEs and
Because the amendments to Regulations 23.151 and 23.158(a) permit the application of larger amounts of MTA, less margin may be collected and posted to offset the risk of uncleared swaps. Nevertheless, the Commission believes that the risk is mitigated because the regulatory MTA thresholds are set at low levels, and CSEs are required to have a risk management program that provides for the implementation of internal risk management parameters for the monitoring and management of swap risk.
The Commission also notes that the amendments simplify the application of the MTA, reducing the burden and cost of implementation, without leading to an unacceptable level of uncollateralized credit risk. Such reduced burden and cost could encourage market participants to increase their participation in the uncleared swap markets, potentially facilitating improved risk management for counterparties using uncleared swaps to hedge risks. Moreover, by facilitating compliance with certain aspects of the Commission's regulations, the Commission allows market participants to focus their efforts on monitoring and ensuring compliance with other substantive aspects of the CFTC Margin Rule, thus promoting balanced and sound risk management.
The amendment to Regulation 23.158(a) addresses the application of separate MTAs for IM and VM, contributing to the CFTC's alignment with other jurisdictions, such as the European Union, which advances the CFTC's efforts to achieve consistent international standards. The CFTC's alignment with other jurisdictions with respect to the application of the MTA will benefit CSEs that are global market participants by eliminating the need to establish different settlement workflows tailored to each jurisdiction in which they operate.
Section 15(b) of the CEA requires the Commission to take into consideration the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws and endeavor to take the least anticompetitive means of achieving the objectives of the CEA, as well as the policies and purposes of the CEA, in issuing any order or adopting any Commission rule or regulation (including any exemption under section 4(c) or 4c(b)), or in requiring or approving any bylaw, rule, or regulation of a contract market or registered futures association established pursuant to section 17 of the CEA.
The Commission believes that the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws is generally to protect competition. The Commission requested comment on whether the Proposal implicated any other specific public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws and received no comments.
The Commission has considered the Final Rule to determine whether it is anticompetitive and has identified no anticompetitive effects. The Commission requested comment on whether the Proposal was anticompetitive and, if it was, what the anticompetitive effects were, and received no comments.
Because the Commission has determined that the Final Rule is not anticompetitive and has no anticompetitive effects, the Commission has not identified any less anticompetitive means of achieving the purposes of the CEA.
Swaps, Swap dealers, Major swap participants, Capital and margin requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission amends 17 CFR part 23 as set forth below:
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6, 6a, 6b, 6b-1,6c, 6p, 6r, 6s, 6t, 9, 9a, 12, 12a, 13b, 13c, 16a, 18, 19, 21.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(1) The account is managed by an asset manager and governed by an investment management agreement, pursuant to which the counterparty grants the asset manager authority with respect to a specified amount of the counterparty's assets;
(2) Swaps are entered into between the counterparty and the covered swap entity by the asset manager on behalf of the account pursuant to authority granted by the counterparty through an investment management agreement; and
(3) The swaps of such account are subject to a master netting agreement that does not provide for the netting of initial or variation margin obligations across all such accounts of the counterparty that have swaps outstanding with the covered swap entity.
(b) * * *
(3)
(c)
(a)
The following appendices will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Chairman Tarbert and Commissioners Quintenz, Behnam, Stump, and Berkovitz voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.
Appendix 2—Supporting Statement of Commissioner Dawn D. Stump
I am pleased to support the final rulemaking that the Commission is adopting with respect to the “minimum transfer amount” provisions of its margin requirements for uncleared swaps.
This rulemaking addresses recommendations that the Commission has received from its Global Markets Advisory Committee (“GMAC”), which I am proud to sponsor, and is based on a comprehensive report prepared by GMAC's Subcommittee on Margin Requirements for Non-Cleared Swaps (“GMAC Margin Subcommittee”).
The rulemaking we are adopting makes two changes to the Commission's uncleared margin rules, which have much to commend them—indeed, we did not receive any comment letters opposing them. These rule changes further objectives that I have commented on before:
• The need to tailor our rules to assure that they are workable for those required to comply with them; and
• the benefits of codifying relief that has been issued by our Staff and re-visiting our rules, where appropriate.
The Commission's uncleared margin rules for swap dealers, like the Framework of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (“BCBS/IOSCO”)
Pursuant to the phased implementation schedule of the Commission's rules and the BCBS/IOSCO Framework, though, a different universe of market participants—presenting unique considerations—will soon be coming into scope of the margin rules. It is only now, as we enter the final phases of the implementation schedule, that the Commission's uncleared margin rules will apply to a significant number of financial end-users, and we have a responsibility to make sure they are fit for that purpose. Accordingly, now is the time we must thoughtfully consider whether the regulatory parameters that we have designed for the largest financial institutions in the earlier phases of margin implementation need to be tailored to account for the practical and operational challenges posed by the exchange of margin when one of the counterparties is a pension plan, endowment, insurance provider, mortgage service provider, or other financial end-user.
This rulemaking regarding the minimum transfer amount (“MTA”) does exactly that. The Commission's uncleared margin rules provide that a swap dealer is not required to collect or post initial margin (“IM”) or variation margin (“VM”) with a counterparty until the combined amount of such IM and VM exceeds the MTA of $500,000. Yet, the application of the MTA presents a significant operational challenge for institutional investors that typically hire asset managers to exercise investment discretion over portions of their assets in separately managed accounts (“SMAs”) for purposes of diversification. As a practical matter, neither the owner of the SMA, the manager of the assets in the SMA, nor the swap dealer that is a counterparty to the SMA is in a position to readily determine when the MTA has been exceeded on an aggregate basis (or to assure that it is not).
To address this challenge, the Commission is amending the definition of MTA in its margin rules to allow a swap dealer to apply an MTA of up to $50,000 to each SMA owned by a counterparty with which the swap dealer enters into uncleared swaps. As noted in the release, any potential increase in uncollateralized credit risk as a result would be mitigated both by the conditions set out in the rules we are adopting, as well as existing safeguards in the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and the Commission's regulations.
This is a sensible approach and an appropriate refinement to make the Commission's uncleared margin rules workable for SMAs given the realities of the modern investment management environment. As I have stated before, no matter how well-intentioned a rule may be, if it is not workable, it cannot deliver on its intended purpose.
As I have said before, “[i]t is simply good government to re-visit our rules and assess whether certain rules need to be updated, evaluate whether rules are achieving their objectives, and identify rules that are falling short and should be withdrawn or improved.”
Staff's no-action relief, and the Commission's rule amendments to codify that relief, take into account the separate settlement workflows that swap counterparties maintain to reflect, from an operational perspective, the different regulatory treatment of IM and VM.
While I am pleased with the steps the Commission is taking, there remains unfinished business in the implementation of uncleared margin requirements. The report of the GMAC Margin Subcommittee recommended several actions, beyond those that we are adopting, to address the hurdles associated with the application of uncleared margin requirements to end-users. Having been present for the development of the Dodd-Frank Act, I recall that the concerns expressed by many lawmakers at the time focused on the application of the new requirements to end-users. The unique challenges with respect to uncleared margin that caused uneasiness back in 2009-2010 are now much more immediate as the margin requirements are being phased in to apply to these end-users. As the calendar turns into the new year, I look forward to continuing to work together to address the other recommendations included in the GMAC Margin Subcommittee's report regarding applying the uncleared margin rules to financial end-users. The need to do so will only become more urgent as time marches on.
To be clear, these changes to the uncleared margin rules are not a “roll-back” of the margin requirements that apply today to the largest financial institutions in their swap transactions with one another. Rather, they reflect a thoughtful refinement of our rules to take account of specific circumstances in which the rules impose substantial practical and operational challenges (
I am very appreciative of the many people whose efforts have contributed to bringing this rulemaking to fruition. First, the members of the GMAC, and especially the GMAC Margin Subcommittee, who devoted a tremendous amount of time to provide us with a high-quality report on complex margin issues during the turmoil at the start of the pandemic. Second, Chairman Tarbert and my fellow Commissioners for working with me on these important issues. And finally, the Staff of the Market Participants Division, whose tireless efforts have enabled us to advance these initiatives to assure that our uncleared margin rules are workable for all, thereby enhancing compliance consistent with our oversight responsibilities under the CEA.
I support today's two final rules that make tailored amendments to the CFTC's Margin Rule.
The two final rules address: (1) The definition of MSE and an alternative method for calculating initial margin (“MSE and Initial Margin Final Rule”); and (2) the application of the minimum transfer amount (“MTA”) for initial and variation margin (“MTA Final Rule”). The final rules align Commission requirements with international frameworks developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (“BCBS/IOSCO”),
The MSE and Initial Margin Final Rule amends the definition of MSE to align it with the BCBS/IOSCO framework, including the method for calculating the average daily aggregate notional amount (“AANA”) of swaps. The final rule provides for calculations based on the average of the last business day in each month of a three-month period. The Commission previously raised concerns that this method of AANA calculation could potentially become less representative of an entity's true AANA and swaps exposure, potentially through the use of “window dressing” to artificially reduce AANA during the measurement period.
The MSE and Initial Margin Final Rule includes an important new provision to
The MSE and Initial Margin Final Rule will also allow SDs and MSPs for which there is no prudential regulator (“Covered Swap Entities” or “CSEs”) to rely on the initial margin calculations of the more sophisticated counterparties with whom they transact swaps to manage their risks. This flexibility is limited to circumstances where a CSE enters into uncleared swaps with an SD, MSP, or swap entity to hedge its customer-facing swaps. This amendment to the Commission's existing rules could help promote liquidity and competition in swaps markets by increasing choice for end-users that are CSE customers.
The MSE and Initial Margin Final Rule provides helpful direction regarding the scope of hedging swaps for purposes of relying on a CSE counterparty's initial margin calculations. As set forth in the preamble to the final rule, a hedging swap must be consistent (although not identical) with the statutory definition of “bona fide hedging transaction or position” in CEA section 4a(c)(2)(B).
To reduce operational burdens associated with de minimis margin transfers, the Margin Rule provides that a CSE is not required to collect or post margin until the combined amount of initial margin and variation margin that is required to be collected or posted and that has not been collected or posted with respect to the counterparty exceeds $500,000—the MTA.
The MTA Final Rule addresses the application of the $500,000 MTA level to a counterparty's “separately managed accounts,” as well as the use of separate MTAs for initial and variation margin.
These new provisions balance concerns over operational inefficiencies and practical challenges in the Commission's MTA rules against concerns that they may result in the exchange of less total margin than would be the case under the Commission's current requirements. Comments in response to the proposed rule noted the difficulties that would be associated with creating numerous separately managed accounts solely to evade the comparatively low $50,000 MTA for separately managed accounts. The MTA Final Rule also defines separately managed account so that the swaps of such account are not subject to a netting of initial or variation margin obligations. This potentially provides further disincentive to create separately managed accounts solely for the purpose of evading the $50,000 MTA level for such accounts.
Mitigating systemic risk to the U.S. financial system was a primary objective of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, and of subsequent Commission rulemakings to implement Dodd-Frank, including the Margin Rule adopted in 2016. The Commission must remain committed to the Margin Rule and vigilant for any large pool of uncollateralized, uncleared swaps exposure. Today's targeted final rules, which codify existing practices, include embedded backstops, and provide tailored operational enhancements to the Margin Rule, are unlikely to present systemic risks.
I thank staff of the Market Participants Division for their work on these final rules.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; modification of closure.
NMFS is opening directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to fully use the A season allowance of the 2021 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), January 20, 2021, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., June 10, 2021. Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., February 3, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2019-0102 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Krista Milani, 907-581-2062.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The A season allowance of the 2021 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 1,701 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2020 and 2021 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (85 FR 13802, March 10, 2020) and inseason adjustment (85 FR 83834, December 23, 2020).
NMFS closed directed fishing for Pacific cod TAC apportioned to catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on January 20, 2021 (85 FR 13802, March 10, 2020).
As of January 20, 2021, NMFS has determined that approximately 1,701 metric tons (mt) remain of the Pacific cod TAC apportioned to catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the A season allowance of the 2021 TAC of Pacific apportioned to catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is reopening directed fishing for Pacific cod apportioned to catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA, effective 1200 hours, A.l.t., January 20, 2021.
The Administrator, Alaska Region (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The catch of Pacific cod apportioned to catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of January 14, 2021.
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. 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 these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by February 24, 2021. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
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.
MGFSP is intended to increase the quantity and quality of locally grown food in food insecure communities, including through small-scale gardening, herding, and livestock operations, in eligible states. The Farm Bill authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $10 million for fiscal year 2019 and each fiscal year thereafter. In fiscal year 2020, $5 million was appropriated.
Because MGFSP is voluntary, respondents request or apply for this specific non-competitive grant program, and in doing so, they provide information. AMS is the primary user of the information. The information collected is needed to certify that grant participants are complying with applicable program regulations, and the data collected is the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the program. The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the 7 U.S.C. 7518, to provide the respondents the type of service they request, and to administer this program.
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 and other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by February 24, 2021 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
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.
Under this request, FS seeks to reinstate a discontinued information collection.
Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice of Information Collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment on the proposed extension of the Quarterly Financial Report, prior to the submission of the information collection request (ICR) to OMB for approval.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 26, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Brandi Maxson, Branch Chief, Quarterly Financial Branch, Economic Indicators Division, (301) 763-6600, and
The Census Bureau is planning to resubmit to the Office of Management and Budget for approval, the Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) program information collection forms. The QFR forms to be submitted for approval are: The QFR 200 (MT) long form (manufacturing, mining, wholesale trade, and retail trade); QFR 201 (MG) short form (manufacturing); and the QFR 300 (S) long form (information services and professional and technical services). The Census Bureau is not requesting any changes to the current forms.
The QFR program collects and publishes up-to-date aggregate statistics on the financial results and position of U.S. corporations. The QFR target population consists of all corporations engaged primarily in manufacturing with total assets of $5 million and over, and all corporations engaged primarily in mining; wholesale trade; retail trade; information; or professional and technical services (except legal services) industries with total assets of $50 million and over.
The QFR program is a principal federal economic indicator that has published up-to-date aggregate statistics on the financial results and position of U.S. corporations since 1947. The QFR provides critical source data to the Bureau of Economic Analysis' quarterly estimates of Gross Domestic Product and Gross Domestic Income. The QFR data are also vital to the Federal Reserve Board's Financial Accounts. These organizations and others like the Bureau of Labor Statistics provide guidance, advice, and support to the QFR
Title 13 of the United States Code, Section 91 requires that financial statistics of business operations be collected and published quarterly. Public Law 114-72 extended the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to conduct the QFR Program under Section 91 through September 30, 2030.
The Census Bureau uses two forms of data collection: Mail out/mail back paper survey forms and a secure encrypted internet data collection system called Centurion. Centurion has automatic data checks and is context-sensitive to assist respondents in identifying potential reporting problems before submission, thus reducing the need for follow-up from Census Bureau staff. Data collection through Centurion is completed via the internet, eliminating the need for downloading software and ensuring the integrity and confidentiality of the data.
Companies are asked to respond to the survey within 25 days of the end of the quarter for which the data are being requested. Census Bureau staff contact companies that have not responded by the designated time through letters, telephone calls, and/or email to encourage participation.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include, or summarize, each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
On September 21, 2020, OFS Fitel, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 26, in Carrollton, Georgia.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On September 18, 2020, Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 134, in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Jiangsu Tiangong Tools Company LTD (TG Tools) did not make a
Applicable January 25, 2021.
Bryan Hansen, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3683.
On April 3, 2020, Commerce published the
The merchandise subject to this order is certain carbon and alloy steel hot-rolled or forged flat plate products not in coils, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances (cut-to-length plate). For a full description of the scope,
All issues raised in case briefs are listed in the appendix to this notice and are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
In the
Because we have determined that TG Tools had no
Because Commerce is rescinding this administrative review, we have not calculated a company-specific dumping margin for TG Tools. TG Tools remains part of the China-wide entity and the entry of its subject merchandise during the POR will be assessed antidumping duties at the China-wide entity rate. The China-wide entity rate is 68.27 percent.
Consistent with its recent notice,
As noted above, Commerce is rescinding this administrative review. Thus, we have not calculated a company-specific dumping margin for TG Tools. Therefore, entries of TG Tools' subject merchandise continue to be subject to the China-wide entity cash deposit rate of 68.27 percent. This cash deposit requirement shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
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 has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Borusan Holding A.S., Borusan Mannesmann Yatirim Holding, Borusan Mannesmann
Applicable January 25, 2021.
Jolanta Lawska, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-8362.
On April 3, 2020, Commerce published the preliminary results of this administrative review.
The merchandise covered by the countervailing duty order is circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Turkey. For a complete description of the scope of the order,
All issues raised in interested parties' case briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issues are identified in the appendix to this notice. 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
Based on the comments received, we made no changes to the net subsidy rates calculated for the Borusan Companies. However, we revised the net subsidy rate assigned to the firms not selected for individual examination. For a discussion of these issues,
Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable during the POR, we determine that there is a subsidy,
In accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we determined an individual subsidy rate for the Borusan Companies and calculated a
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these final results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Consistent with its recent notice,
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, we intend to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties, in the amounts shown above, with the exception of the Borusan Companies, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. Because the countervailable subsidy rate for the Borusan Companies is
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition 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 or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) are being sold in the United States at prices below normal value. The period of review (POR) is September 1,
Applicable January 25, 2021.
Davina Friedmann, Mark Flessner, or Frank Schmitt, 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) 482-0698, (202) 482-6312, or (202) 482-4880, respectively.
These preliminary results are made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this administrative review on November 12, 2019.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this administrative review,
The product covered by the
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. Commerce preliminarily finds that a cost-based particular market situation (PMS) existed in Korea during the POR concerning the cost of hot-rolled coil (HRC) as a component of the cost of production for the OCTG that Hyundai Steel and SeAH produced.
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the rate to be applied to companies not selected for 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 a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
In this review, we have preliminarily calculated weighted-average dumping margins for SeAH that is not zero,
Commerce preliminarily determines that, for the period September 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019, the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results of review to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than seven days after the date for filing case briefs.
Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.
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, filed electronically via Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS. An electronically filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended.
Upon completion of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Hyundai Steel or SeAH for which the producer did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, or for any respondent for which we have a final determination of no shipments, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies listed in the final results of review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters 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 they were reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 5.24 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.
This notice 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 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.
The preliminary results of this administrative review 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 Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai) and POSCO/POSCO International Corporation (PIC), the two companies selected for individual examination, did not sell certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) in the United States at prices below normal value during the period of review (POR) September 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable January 25, 2021.
Michael J. Heaney, George McMahon, or Marc Castillo, 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) 482-4475, (202) 482-1167, or (202) 482-5019, respectively.
These preliminary results are made in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On November 12, 2019, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel from Korea for 38 companies.
On April 24, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative reviews by 50 days.
On October 7, 2020, Commerce published a notice in the
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this administrative review,
The product covered by the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a) of the Act. Commerce has calculated constructed export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. Commerce preliminarily finds that a cost-based particular market situation (PMS) existed in Korea during the POR concerning the cost of hot-rolled coil (HRC) as a component of the cost of production for the cold-rolled steel that Hyundai Steel and POSCO/PIC produced.
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies 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 a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
In this review, we preliminarily calculated a zero percent dumping margin for Hyundai and POSCO/PIC and have assigned this rate (
Commerce preliminarily determines that, for the period September 1, 2018 through August 31, 2019, the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.
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, filed electronically via Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS. An electronically filed request
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended.
Upon completion of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Hyundai and POSCO/PIC for which the producer did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, or for any respondent for which we have a final determination of no shipments, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company (or companies) involved in the transaction.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Hyundai, POSCO/PIC, and other companies listed in the final results of review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters 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 they were reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original investigation but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 20.33 percent,
This notice 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 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.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 26, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Keeley Kent, (206) 247-8252 or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
The success of fisheries management programs depends significantly on regulatory compliance. The requirements that fishing gear be marked are essential to facilitate enforcement. The ability to link fishing gear to the vessel owner or operator is crucial to enforcement of regulations issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The marking of fishing gear is also valuable in actions concerning damage, loss, and civil proceedings. The regulations specify that fishing gear must be marked with the vessel's official number, Federal permit or tag number, or some other specified form of identification. The regulations further specify how the gear is to be marked (
The physical marking of fishing buoys is done by fishermen in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery according to regulation.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Reopening of public comment period.
On December 16, 2020, NMFS requested input on the Work Plan of the Interagency Working Group on Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing. That notice requested comments by January 15, 2021. NMFS received comments requesting that the comment period be extended. We are reopening the comment period to fulfill the request and provide additional time to submit comments.
Information should be received on or before February 24, 2021.
Information may be submitted electronically to
Mi Ae Kim, phone 301-427-8365 or email
The Maritime Security and Fisheries Enforcement Act (Maritime SAFE Act) became law on December 20, 2019. The overarching purpose of the Maritime SAFE Act is to support a whole-of-government approach across the Federal government to counter illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and related threats to maritime security. It seeks to achieve this through a number of means, including: Improve data sharing that enhances surveillance, enforcement, and prosecution against
Part II of the Maritime SAFE Act calls for the establishment of the Interagency Working Group on IUU Fishing, specifying the chair and agency membership in the Working Group, as well as the Working Group's responsibilities. This Working Group met for the first time in June 2020. NOAA is chair of this Working Group for its first 3 years, joined by the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Coast Guard as deputy chairs.
The Working Group has developed its Work Plan, a living document that will serve as the basis for a 5-year strategic plan that is due to Congress by the end of calendar year 2021. In this Work Plan, the Working Group identified ongoing existing activities, as well as new lines of effort, that comprise the initial focus of Federal government actions under the purview of the Working Group. Many of the new activities proposed in the Work Plan emphasize the use of maritime intelligence and the involvement of military departments to support efforts to combat IUU fishing. The Work Plan can be found here:
The Working Group is exploring potential ways in which the government and private sector stakeholders can work together to combat IUU fishing and enhance maritime security. We are interested to hear from the seafood industry, non-governmental organizations, and other stakeholders that are engaged in efforts to combat IUU fishing. We welcome comments in relation to the Work Plan, particularly any responses to the following questions:
• Which activities in the Work Plan are connected to the expertise or interests of your organization related to combating IUU fishing?
• What kinds of distinctive capabilities or capacities could your organization bring to the activities in the Work Plan?
• Which specific activities could serve as the basis for a partnership between your organization and particular Federal agencies?
• Are there specific geographic regions or seafood industry sectors (
• Which elements in the Work Plan do you see as priorities to include in the 5-year Strategic Plan of the Working Group?
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 26, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Lauren Dolinger Few, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology, 1315 East-West Hwy./FST1, Silver Spring, MD 21910, Phone: (301) 427-8127
This request is for extension of a currently approved collection. The National Saltwater Angler Registry Program (Registry Program) was established to implement recommendations included in the review of national saltwater angling data collection programs conducted by the National Research Council (NRC) in 2005/2006, and the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act, codified at Section 401(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), which require the Secretary of Commerce to commence improvements to recreational fisheries surveys, including establishing a national saltwater angler and for-hire vessel registry, by January 1, 2009. A final rule that includes regulatory measures to implement the Registry Program (RIN 0648-AW10) was adopted and codified in 50 CFR 600, subpart P.
The Registry Program collects identification and contact information from those anglers and for-hire vessels who are involved in recreational fishing in the United States Exclusive Economic Zone or for anadromous fish in any waters, unless the anglers or vessels are exempted from the registration requirement. Data collected includes—for anglers: Name, address, date of birth, telephone contact information and region(s) of the country in which they fish; for for-hire vessels: Owner and operator name, address, date of birth, telephone contact information, vessel name and registration/documentation number and home port or primary operating area. This information is compiled into a national and/or series of regional registries that is being used to support surveys of recreational anglers and for-hire vessels to develop estimates of recreational angling effort.
Persons may register online at a NOAA-maintained website. Registration cards, valid for one year from the date of issuance, are mailed to registrants.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 26, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Mary Allen, NOAA Office for Coastal Management, Coral Reef Conservation Program, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Telephone (240) 533-0784 or
This request is for the revision and extension of a currently approved information collection under OMB Control Number 0648-0646. The information collection is part of the National Coral Reef Monitoring Program (NCRMP), which was established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP) under the authority of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000. The CRCP was created to safeguard and ensure the welfare of the coral reef ecosystems along the coastlines of America's states and territories. In accordance with its mission goals, NOAA developed a survey to track relevant information regarding each jurisdiction's population, social and economic structure, the benefits of coral reefs and related habitats, the impacts of society on coral reefs, and the impacts of coral management on communities. The survey is repeated in each jurisdiction every five to seven years in order to provide longitudinal data and information for managers to effectively conserve coral reefs for current and future generations.
The purpose of this information collection is to obtain human dimensions information from residents in the seven United States (U.S.) jurisdictions containing coral reefs: Florida, U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), Puerto Rico, Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Specifically, NOAA is seeking information on the behaviors and activities related to coral reefs, as well as information on perceptions of coral reef conditions and attitudes toward specific reef conservation activities. Each survey has a core set of questions that are the same for all jurisdictions to allow for information to be tracked over time. To account for geographical, cultural and linguistic differences between jurisdictions, the survey questions include items that are specific to the local context and developed based on jurisdictional partner feedback.
We intend to use the information collected through this instrument for research purposes, as well as for measuring and improving the results of our reef protection programs. Because many of our efforts to protect reefs rely on education and changing attitudes toward reef protection, the information collected will allow CRCP to ensure that programs are designed appropriately at the start, future program evaluation efforts are as successful as possible, and outreach efforts are targeting the intended recipients with useful information.
Pursuant to a request from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), this collection of information is being revised to restructure these surveys as a hybrid-generic collection.
Information will be collected using the most efficient and effective methodology that is feasible in the individual jurisdiction. For the three
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 26, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Lisa L. Colburn, Social Scientist, NOAA/Northeast Fisheries Science Center, (401-782-3253),
This request is for a revision to an approved collection. This collection is currently approved for implementation in New England and the Mid-Atlantic regions by NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center's Social Sciences Branch (NEFSC-SSB). The NEFSC-SSB, in collaboration with the Southeast Fisheries Science Center Social Science Research Group (SEFSC-SSRG), requests a revision to expand the geographic scope of the survey to include South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions, an associated collection title change (“Socio-Economic Survey of Hired Captains and Crew in New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Commercial Fisheries”), and to make minor revisions to the survey form that address regional differences in fisheries. The NEFSC and SEFSC seek to conduct surveys to provide for the ongoing collection of social and economic data related to the fishing industries in those states. The purpose of this survey is to assess and track over time the social and economic conditions of commercial fishing crews and hired captains for which little is known. This survey will provide data on social and economic impacts for this population and the changes in fisheries as a result of regulatory changes. Data to be collected include demographic information on crew, wage calculations systems, individual and community well-being, fishing practices, job satisfaction, job opportunities, and attitudes toward fisheries management. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management Act (MSA) both contain requirements for considering the social and economic impacts of fishery management decisions. There is a need to understand how such fishery management policies and programs will affect the social and economic characteristics of those involved in the commercial fishing industry. To help meet these requirements of NEPA and MSA, the NEFSC and SEFSC will collect data on an ongoing basis to track how socio-economic characteristics of fisheries are changing over time and the impact of fishery management policies and programs implemented in New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions.
This information will be collected through in-person intercept interviews and telephone.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of Letter of Authorization.
Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, and implementing regulations, NMFS issued a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to Hilcorp Alaska LLC (Hilcorp) to take marine mammals incidental to oil and gas activities in Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Applicable until April 21, 2021.
Sara Young, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An incidental take authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
NMFS issued regulations governing the take of 11 species of marine mammal, by Level A and Level B harassment, incidental to Hilcorp's oil and gas activities on July 31, 2019 (84 FR 37442). These regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental take of marine mammals during the specified activities. As further detailed in the regulations (50 CFR 217.167), adaptive management measures allow NMFS to modify or renew LOAs as necessary if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effective mitigation and monitoring. NMFS issued the first LOA to Hilcorp under these regulations on July 31, 2019. NMFS published a
NMFS has issued a LOA (available at
Office of the Under Secretary (Personnel and Readiness), Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of housing price inflation adjustment.
The Department of Defense is announcing the 2020 rent threshold under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Applying the inflation adjustment for 2020, the maximum monthly rental amount as of January 1, 2021, will be $4,089.62.
These housing price inflation adjustments are effective January 1, 2021.
Lt. Col. Patrick Schwomeyer, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, (703) 692-8170.
The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, as codified at 50 U.S.C. App. 3951, prohibits a landlord from evicting a Service member (or the Service member's family) from a residence during a period of military service, except by court order. The law as originally passed by Congress applied to dwellings with monthly rents of $2,400 or less. The law requires the Department of Defense to adjust this amount annually to reflect inflation and to publish the new amount in the
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation.
Notice; regular meeting.
Notice is hereby given, in accordance with the provisions of Article VI of the Bylaws of the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC), of a forthcoming regular meeting of the Board of Directors of FCSIC.
January 28, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. EDT, until such time as the Board may conclude its business.
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we will conduct the board meeting virtually. If you would like to observe the open portion of the virtual meeting, see instructions in
Dale Aultman, Secretary to the Board of the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, (703) 883-4009. TTY is (703) 883-4056.
Instructions for attending the virtual meeting: Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public, and parts will be closed. To observe the open portion of the virtual meeting, go to
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver) as Receiver for the institution listed below intends to terminate its receivership for said institution.
The liquidation of the assets for the receivership has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing, identify the receivership to which the comment pertains, and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Notice of guidelines.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has adopted revised Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations to establish an independent office that would replace the existing Supervision Appeals Review Committee and to modify the procedures and timeframes for considering formal enforcement-related decisions through the supervisory appeals process.
The new Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations will become effective once the Office of Supervisory Appeals is fully operational.
Sheikha Kapoor, Senior Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 898-3960,
On September 1, 2020, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) published in the
Section 309(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (Riegle Act) required the FDIC (as well as the other Federal banking agencies and the National Credit Union Administration) to establish an “independent intra-agency appellate process” to review material supervisory determinations.
The Riegle Act defines “material supervisory determinations” to include determinations relating to: (1) Examination ratings; (2) the adequacy of loan loss reserve provisions; and (3) classifications on loans that are significant to an institution.
On March 21, 1995, the FDIC's Board of Directors (Board) adopted the Guidelines to implement Section 309(a). The Board, at that time, established the SARC to consider and decide appeals of material supervisory determinations.
In July 2004, the FDIC revised the Guidelines to change the structure and composition of the SARC to its current form. Specifically, the voting members of the SARC are now comprised of: One of the FDIC's three inside directors (who serves as the SARC Chairperson), and one deputy or special assistant to each of the other two inside directors.
In July 2017, the FDIC further revised the Guidelines to provide an opportunity for IDIs to appeal certain material supervisory determinations
In 2019, the FDIC decided to explore potential improvements to the supervisory appeals process. As part of this process, the FDIC's Office of the Ombudsman hosted a webinar and in-person listening sessions in each FDIC Region regarding the agency's supervisory appeals and dispute resolution processes. The sessions offered bankers and other interested persons an opportunity to provide individual input and recommendations regarding the supervisory appeals process.
Among other topics, session participants offered suggestions on the composition of the SARC. In particular, participants focused on the composition of the SARC and opportunities to further enhance the independence of the appeals process. Relatedly, participants emphasized the importance of ensuring that SARC members have the subject matter expertise needed to decide supervisory appeals. Participants offered a range of suggestions on this topic, including adding an individual who is not otherwise affiliated with the FDIC to the SARC, such as a retired banking attorney or a former Federal or State bank regulator. Certain challenges were also discussed with respect to adding an individual who is not affiliated with the FDIC, such as ensuring the confidentiality of information and the avoidance of conflicts of interest.
Questions related to the timeframes for appeals and the types of matters that may be appealed if the FDIC pursues a formal enforcement action were also raised at a number of the listening sessions. Through these discussions, it appears that the procedures that apply when the FDIC has provided notice of a recommended or proposed formal enforcement action may be a source of confusion to bankers.
Participants also raised concerns about bankers' fear of retaliation by FDIC examiners, notwithstanding existing provisions in the Guidelines prohibiting such retaliation. This concern was cited as a basis for causing bankers to be reluctant to fully engage with the FDIC on material areas of disagreement. FDIC policy prohibits any retaliation, abuse, or retribution by an agency examiner or any FDIC personnel against an institution, and the FDIC continues to explore options to reaffirm its commitment to ensure compliance with this policy. In addition, while not specifically related to the supervisory appeals process, participants provided a variety of comments and recommendations on the examination process. Participants also shared views regarding the publicly available information on SARC decisions and ideas for improving the transparency of SARC decisions, such as publishing aggregate data on the outcomes of supervisory appeals.
In August 2020, the FDIC published for comment a proposal to replace the SARC with an independent, standalone office within the FDIC, known as the Office of Supervisory Appeals (Office).
Under the proposed Guidelines, an IDI would be encouraged to make a good-faith effort to resolve disagreements with its examiners and/or the appropriate Regional Office. If these efforts were not successful, the IDI would submit a request for review to the appropriate Division Director, who would have the option of issuing a written decision or sending the appeal directly to the Office. An IDI that disagrees with the decision made by the Division Director could submit an appeal to the Office.
If a material supervisory determination was appealed to the Office, a three-member panel of the Office would consider the appeal and issue a written decision. The Division Director and the Ombudsman would be permitted to submit views on the appeal to the panel. The Legal Division would provide counsel to the Office. Oral presentation to the panel would be permitted if a request was made by the institution or by FDIC staff.
The proposal provided that the panel would review an appeal for consistency with the policies, practices, and mission of the FDIC and the overall reasonableness of, and the support offered for, the positions advanced, consistent with the existing standard of review for the SARC. The scope of the panel's review would be limited to the facts and circumstances as they existed prior to or at the time the material supervisory determination was made, even if later discovered, and no consideration would be given to any facts or circumstances that occur or corrective action taken after the determination was made. The Office's role would not be to set policy, and the Office would not consider aspects of an appeal that sought to change or modify FDIC policy or rules.
Consistent with the existing Guidelines and the Riegle Act, the Office would not review decisions to appoint a conservator or receiver for an IDI. The FDIC proposed to further clarify that decisions made in furtherance of the resolution or receivership process or planning also would not be considered material supervisory determinations.
The FDIC also proposed amending the procedures for considering formal enforcement-related decisions through the supervisory appeals process. Specifically, the proposal clarified that, for purposes of the supervisory appeals process, a formal enforcement-related action commences—and appeal rights become unavailable—when the FDIC initiates a formal investigation, issues a notice of charges (or notice of assessment, as applicable), provides the IDI with a draft consent order, or otherwise provides written notice to the IDI that the FDIC is reviewing the relevant facts and circumstances to determine whether a formal enforcement action is merited. The FDIC would then have 120 days from the date
Once the FDIC provides an IDI with a draft consent order, the parties would have an opportunity to negotiate the details of a potential settlement. The proposal did not include a fixed time limit on such negotiations. At any time, the IDI could notify the Division in writing that it believes further negotiation would not be productive, and the Division would then have 90 days to issue a notice of charges (or assessment) or to open an order of investigation. If the Division failed to issue such a notice or open an order of investigation within that time, the IDI would have 60 days to file an appeal of the material supervisory determination, consistent with the standard timeline following a material supervisory determination. If the IDI agrees to the consent order, then the matter would be resolved, and the need for an appeal would be obviated.
The FDIC received fifteen comments from a variety of interested parties, including banks, trade associations, law firms, and a consultant. Commenters generally supported the proposal, with most asserting that the changes would enhance the supervisory appeals process. In particular, commenters supported the steps taken to promote the independence of the Office, suggesting that this would bolster the industry's confidence in the supervisory appeals process.
The FDIC's proposal solicited feedback on particular aspects of the supervisory appeals process. Comments on these matters and the FDIC's responses are summarized below.
The FDIC asked whether commenters believed that the Chairperson or the Board should have an opportunity to review Office decisions before issuance. While a few commenters asserted that the FDIC's senior management should review Office decisions, most commenters believed that review by the Chairperson or the Board would undermine the independence of the Office. In particular, two commenters suggested that review by the Chairperson or Board could deter banks from availing themselves of the process. A trade association also noted that if an appeal relates to an enforcement action, review of the appeal by the Board members could compromise the spirit of the Board's review of the administrative law judge's recommended decision.
Consistent with the proposal, the final Guidelines provide for review of material supervisory determinations by the Division Director and then by the Office. The FDIC proposed to establish the Office with authority to consider and resolve appeals of material supervisory determinations in order to promote independence. Additional levels of review also could delay the resolution of appeals, and the FDIC is mindful of the need to decide appeals expeditiously. For these reasons, the final Guidelines do not provide for additional levels of review beyond the Office.
The FDIC proposed staffing the Office with reviewing officials who have bank supervisory or examination experience, such as retired bank examiners. The FDIC asked whether bank supervisory or examination experience would constitute appropriate qualifications and experience for these positions. Commenters expressed a range of views on this topic. Some commenters supported staffing the Office with individuals with bank supervisory or examination experience. On the other hand, several trade associations, a bank, and a law firm stated that the Office should not be limited to staff with supervisory experience, and should also include retired bank officers, bank board members, consultants, or banking law attorneys. Some of these commenters suggested that each review panel include one or more members with industry experience.
The FDIC appreciates the perspective and expertise that bankers and other industry professionals could bring to the process. At the same time, the FDIC acknowledges that, because of the Office's role in making final decisions on appeals of material supervisory determinations on behalf of the agency, supervisory experience and training provides a firm foundation for exercising that responsibility and helps ensure a thorough understanding of the supervisory process. With this in mind, the FDIC will, as proposed, deem bank supervisory or examination experience as required background for panelists. However, the FDIC appreciates that industry perspective can be valuable and accordingly will generally view relevant industry experience favorably.
A number of commenters made suggestions with respect to the staffing of the Office. A trade association recommended that reviewing officials serve staggered terms, with no official serving more than five years. Another trade association suggested that terms should not be renewable. Two commenters recommended that reviewing officials selected for the Office should not have been employed by the FDIC for at least the two years prior, thereby promoting separation between the Office and existing staff. The FDIC believes some of these recommendations will be beneficial to promoting the Office's independence, and will consider others carefully as it prepares to hire reviewing officials. Reviewing officials will be hired for terms, and only former, rather than current, government officials will be eligible to serve as reviewing officials.
A few commenters recommended changes with respect to the Ombudsman's role in the process to promote the Office's independence. In particular, a bank encouraged the FDIC to include the Ombudsman as a non-voting member on the panel. The Ombudsman serves as a neutral liaison between the FDIC and institutions, as provided by section 309 of the Riegle Act.
Two commenters recommended resourcing the Office with independent administrative and legal support. The Office will share administrative support with the Legal Division, which also will provide counsel to the Office. To promote independence, legal staff that were involved in making the material
To provide further clarity, the Guidelines state that the Legal Division will provide counsel to the Office and generally advise on FDIC policies and rules. If an appeal seeks to change or modify FDIC policies or rules, or raises a policy matter of first impression, the Office will, with the Legal Division's concurrence, refer the matter to the Chairperson's Office. In addition, the Legal Division will review decisions of the Office for consistency with applicable laws, regulations, and policies of the FDIC prior to their issuance. If the Legal Division determines that an Office decision is contrary to a law, regulation, or FDIC policy, the Office will be required to revise the decision to conform with relevant laws, regulations, or policies. The Legal Division will not exercise supervisory judgment or opine on the merits of an appeal.
A trade association stated that the FDIC should take measures to ensure that reviewing officials are not retaliated against for their decisions. The FDIC has structured the Office to minimize the risk that a fear of retaliation could impact decisions by reviewing officials. Reviewing officials will be hired for terms, and only former, rather than current, government officials will be eligible to serve as reviewing officials. Additionally, all decisions related to which reviewing officials will serve on which panels will be decided by the Office, and not by any FDIC officials outside of the Office.
The FDIC also received comments reiterating that some IDIs may not appeal decisions due to a fear of retaliation from examiners. As noted in the proposal, FDIC policy currently prohibits any retaliation, abuse, or retribution by an agency examiner or any FDIC personnel against an institution, and the FDIC continues to explore options to reaffirm its commitment to and ensure compliance with this policy.
Like the current standard of review, under the proposed Guidelines, the Division Director and the Office would review appeals for consistency with the policies, practices, and mission of the FDIC and the overall reasonableness of, and the support offered for, the positions advanced. Two trade associations encouraged the FDIC to adopt a
The FDIC agrees that a change in the standard of review for appeals to the Division Director would be appropriate. The final Guidelines therefore provide that the Division Director will make his or her own supervisory determination, which is substantially similar to the standard adopted by the initial review panel under the FRB's approach.
A law firm and two trade associations recommended that the FDIC prohibit
The FDIC proposed that each appeal would be heard by a panel of three reviewing officials, and asked whether three reviewers per panel would be an appropriate number, or whether there were some situations where more or fewer panelists might be appropriate. A number of commenters suggested panels comprised of five reviewing officials. In particular, a trade association asserted that this number is common across governmental bodies, affords increased diversity in perspectives and expertise, and decreases the likelihood of deference to the strong opinions of one panel member. Other commenters suggested expanding the size of panels to five members in order to accommodate the addition of staff with industry experience. Two commenters, including a trade association and a consultant, suggested expanding the size of review panels in case a review official becomes ill or must be recused. A law firm suggested that relatively minor matters (
The FDIC agrees that five-member panels could be beneficial in some situations. To provide the Office with flexibility, the final Guidelines provide that panels may be comprised of either three or five reviewing officials. When an appeal is submitted to the Office, a panel of either three or five reviewing officials will be assigned to consider the matter. The FDIC believes that initial experiences administering this new process may help to determine the most appropriate size for panels going forward.
The FDIC proposed that an IDI would be able to appeal the Division Director's decision to the Office, and that no appeal of the Office's decision would be permissible. The FDIC asked commenters whether the appellate process should have any additional level(s) of review before or after the Office.
Commenters generally stated that the process should not include an additional level of review before an appeal to the Office. In particular, a trade association asserted that the FDIC should remove barriers for institutions wishing to appeal material supervisory determinations, including layers of review. However, a few commenters recommended an additional level of review following a decision by the Office. A law firm suggested allowing Office decisions to be appealed to the individuals that currently serve on the SARC, and a trade association suggested that either the Board or the institution could request reconsideration of Office decisions within 30 days of issuance. A bank holding company also recommended that institutions have the option to bring matters to an administrative law judge as an alternative to review by the Office.
The final Guidelines do not include any additional levels of review. It is not clear that review by the individuals currently comprising the current SARC would be beneficial because replacing the SARC with the Office was intended
The FDIC asked whether the proposed timelines properly balance the goals of resolving appeals as expeditiously as possible and providing adequate time for preparation and review. Under the Guidelines, an institution would have 60 calendar days in which to file a request for review with the Division Director. Within 45 calendar days after receiving that request, the Division Director would either review the appeal and issue a written determination or refer the request for review to the Office for consideration. Upon receiving the Division Director's decision, an IDI would have 30 calendar days to file an appeal with the Office. Within 90 calendar days after receiving the appeal (including 30 days for the Ombudsman and the Division Director to submit views), the Office would meet to adjudicate the appeal, and would notify the institution of its decision within 45 calendar days after that meeting.
While several commenters stated that these timeframes were reasonable, others encouraged the FDIC to consider changes to expedite the process. A law firm asserted that unless a particularly serious matter is involved, the appeals process should be completed within 180 days of the examination exit meeting, rather than within 270 days as the proposal would allow. A bank holding company stated that the Office should issue decisions within 60 days of receiving appeals. A few commenters recommended allowing institutions to petition the Office for expedited review of supervisory determinations in certain circumstances. In addition, two trade associations suggested allowing extensions of the time frames in the appeals process. Another commenter suggested that the FDIC clarify that whenever a deadline falls on a weekend or federal holiday, the deadline should move to the next business day.
The FDIC believes that, in general, the proposed timeframes appropriately balance the interest in resolving appeals expeditiously with the need for adequate preparation and review. The FDIC expects that the process will move more quickly in straightforward cases that do not involve complex issues or review of extensive documents. Additionally, certain circumstances may warrant expedited consideration of an appeal, and the FDIC agrees that the process should permit institutions to petition for expedited review. Under section G.2 of the final Guidelines, an institution may request expedited review in its appeal to the Office.
The FDIC expects that extensions will generally be unnecessary, but believes that it is reasonable to permit institutions to request extensions under appropriate circumstances. This is consistent with both the spirit of the process and current FDIC practice. Accordingly, the final Guidelines provide that an institution may request an extension of the time period to submit an appeal. Such requests may be directed to the appropriate Division Director with respect to the first stage of the appeal, and to the Office with respect to the second stage. Finally, the FDIC agrees that the suggested clarification with respect to deadlines that fall on a weekend or federal holiday would be helpful, and has adopted it in the final Guidelines.
The FDIC proposed publishing decisions of the Office as soon as practicable and with redactions to avoid disclosure of the name of the appealing institution and other information exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. For cases in which redaction is deemed insufficient to prevent improper disclosure, the FDIC proposed publishing decision summaries. The FDIC also proposed that published Office decisions could be cited as precedent in Office appeals. Finally, the FDIC proposed publishing annual reports on decisions issued by Division Directors. These proposals are consistent with the FDIC's current policies regarding decisions issued by Division Directors and the SARC. The FDIC asked commenters what other information should be published about the appeals process or specific decisions while still maintaining confidentiality.
Several commenters agreed that the information published about the supervisory appeals process was sufficient, and agreed that the FDIC should continue to ensure that confidentiality is preserved. One commenter encouraged the FDIC to publish a chart online listing the outcome of appeals along with a short summary of the case. The FDIC agrees that the transparency of the appeals process could be enhanced by providing summary statistics on the outcomes of appeals. The final Guidelines therefore provide for the publication of such information.
Two trade associations requested that an institution's senior management should be permitted to authorize supervisory appeals. The FDIC has adopted this suggestion in the final Guidelines. If an institution's senior management files an appeal, it must inform the board of directors of the substance of the appeal before filing and keep the board of directors informed of the appeal's status.
The FDIC proposed a timeline that would apply to supervisory appeals in instances in which the FDIC is also evaluating whether a formal enforcement action is merited. In any case where the FDIC has provided notice to an IDI that it is determining whether a formal enforcement action is merited based on an examination, the FDIC would have 120 days to issue an order of investigation, a notice of charges (or notice of assessment, as applicable), or provide the institution with a draft consent order. If the FDIC fails to do so within the 120-day timeframe, the IDI's supervisory appeal rights would be made available. However, if the FDIC provides an IDI with a draft consent order, the parties would have an opportunity to negotiate the details of a potential settlement without a fixed time limit. At any time, if the IDI believes that further negotiations would not be productive, it could notify the Division of its decision in writing, at which point the Division would have 90 days to issue a notice of charges (or assessment) or to open an order of investigation. If the Division failed to produce a notice of charges (or
The FDIC proposed that these time periods could be extended with the approval of the Chairperson's Office, or with the mutual agreement of both parties. The FDIC asked commenters whether this timeline would be too restrictive for some cases, and whether commenters expect to invoke the provision(s) allowing for an extension. Several commenters stated that the proposed timeframe was appropriate. A bank suggested that instead of the proposed extension provisions, the process should permit both the FDIC and the institution to request a one-time extension of a deadline for 30 days. The FDIC believes that limiting the parties to a one-time 30-day extension could hinder the parties' efforts to settle an enforcement action, and is therefore finalizing these provisions as proposed.
The FDIC expects that a period of time will be necessary to establish and staff the Office. The current Guidelines, which permit appeals of Division Directors' decisions to the SARC, will apply until the Office is fully operational. The FDIC will publish a notice to inform institutions when this occurs.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors adopts the Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations as set forth below.
Section 309(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-325, 108 Stat. 2160) (Riegle Act) required the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to establish an independent intra-agency appellate process to review material supervisory determinations made at insured depository institutions that it supervises. The Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations (Guidelines) describe the types of determinations that are eligible for review and the process by which appeals will be considered and decided. The procedures set forth in these Guidelines establish an appeals process for the review of material supervisory determinations by the Office of Supervisory Appeals (Office).
The Office will be staffed with reviewing officials who have bank supervisory or examination experience. Reviewing officials will be hired for terms, and only former, rather than current, government officials will be eligible to serve as reviewing officials. Reviewing officials will consider and decide appeals submitted to the Office. Each appeal will be reviewed and decided by a panel of either three or five reviewing officials who have no conflicts of interest with respect to the appeal or the parties to the appeal. All decisions related to which reviewing officials will serve on which panels will be decided by the Office.
The Guidelines apply to the insured depository institutions that the FDIC supervises (
An institution may appeal any material supervisory determination pursuant to the procedures set forth in these Guidelines.
(1) Material supervisory determinations include:
(a) CAMELS ratings under the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System;
(b) IT ratings under the Uniform Rating System for Information Technology;
(c) Trust ratings under the Uniform Interagency Trust Rating System;
(d) CRA ratings under the Revised Uniform Interagency Community Reinvestment Act Assessment Rating System;
(e) Consumer compliance ratings under the Uniform Interagency Consumer Compliance Rating System;
(f) Registered transfer agent examination ratings;
(g) Government securities dealer examination ratings;
(h) Municipal securities dealer examination ratings;
(i) Determinations relating to the appropriateness of loan loss reserve provisions;
(j) Classifications of loans and other assets in dispute the amount of which, individually or in the aggregate, exceeds 10 percent of an institution's total capital;
(k) Determinations relating to violations of a statute or regulation that may affect the capital, earnings, or operating flexibility of an institution, or otherwise affect the nature and level of supervisory oversight accorded an institution;
(l) Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) restitution;
(m) Filings made pursuant to 12 CFR 303.11(f), for which a request for reconsideration has been granted, other than denials of a change in bank control, change in senior executive officer or board of directors, or denial of an application pursuant to section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act), 12 U.S.C. 1829 (which are contained in 12 CFR 308, subparts D, L, and M, respectively), if the filing was originally denied by the Director, Deputy Director, or Associate Director of the Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection (DCP) or the Division of Risk Management Supervision (RMS);
(n) Decisions to initiate informal enforcement actions (such as memoranda of understanding);
(o) Determinations regarding the institution's level of compliance with a formal enforcement action; however, if the FDIC determines that the lack of compliance with an existing formal enforcement action requires an additional formal enforcement action, the proposed new enforcement action is not appealable;
(p) Matters requiring board attention; and
(q) Any other supervisory determination (unless otherwise not eligible for appeal) that may affect the capital, earnings, operating flexibility, or capital category for prompt corrective action purposes of an institution, or that otherwise affects the nature and level of supervisory oversight accorded an institution.
(2) Material supervisory determinations do not include:
(a) Decisions to appoint a conservator or receiver for an insured depository institution, and other decisions made in furtherance of the resolution or receivership process, including but not limited to determinations pursuant to parts 370, 371, and 381, and § 360.10 of the FDIC's rules and regulations;
(b) Decisions to take prompt corrective action pursuant to section 38 of the FDI Act, 12 U.S.C. 1831
(c) Determinations for which other appeals procedures exist (such as determinations of deposit insurance assessment risk classifications and payment calculations); and
(d) Formal enforcement-related actions and decisions, including determinations and the underlying facts
(3) A formal enforcement-related action or decision commences, and becomes unappealable, when the FDIC initiates a formal investigation under 12 U.S.C. 1820(c) (Order of Investigation), issues a notice of charges or a notice of assessment under 12 U.S.C. 1818 or other applicable laws (Notice of Charges), provides the institution with a draft consent order, or otherwise provides written notice to the institution that the FDIC is reviewing the facts and circumstances presented to determine if a formal enforcement action is merited under applicable statutes or published enforcement-related policies of the FDIC, including written notice of a referral to the Attorney General pursuant to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) or a notice to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for violations of ECOA or the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Such notice may be provided in the transmittal letter accompanying a Report of Examination. For the purposes of these Guidelines, remarks in a Report of Examination do not constitute written notice that the FDIC is reviewing the facts and circumstances presented to determine if a proposed enforcement action is merited. Commencement of a formal enforcement-related action or decision will not suspend or otherwise affect a pending request for review or appeal that was submitted before the commencement of the formal enforcement-related action or decision.
(4) Additional Appeal Rights:
(a) In the case of any written notice from the FDIC to the institution that the FDIC is determining whether a formal enforcement action is merited, the FDIC must issue an Order of Investigation, issue a Notice of Charges, or provide the institution with a draft consent order within 120 days of such a notice, or appeal rights will be made available pursuant to these Guidelines. If the FDIC timely provides the institution with a draft consent order and the institution rejects the draft consent order in writing, the FDIC must issue an Order of Investigation or a Notice of Charges within 90 days from the date on which the institution rejects the draft consent order in writing or appeal rights will be made available pursuant to these Guidelines. The FDIC may extend these periods, with the approval of the Chairperson's Office, after the FDIC notifies the institution that the relevant Division Director is seeking formal authority to take an enforcement action.
(b) In the case of a referral to the Attorney General for violations of the ECOA, beginning on the date the referral is returned to the FDIC, the FDIC must proceed in accordance within paragraph (a), including within the specified timeframes, or appeal rights will be made available pursuant to these Guidelines.
(c) In the case of providing notice to HUD for violations of the ECOA or the FHA, beginning on the date the notice is provided, the FDIC must proceed in accordance within paragraph (a), including within the specified timeframes, or appeal rights will be made available pursuant to these Guidelines.
(d) Written notification will be provided to the institution within 10 days of a determination that appeal rights have been made available under this section.
(e) The relevant FDIC Division and the institution may mutually agree to extend the timeframes in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) if the parties deem it appropriate.
An institution should make a good-faith effort to resolve any dispute concerning a material supervisory determination with the on-site examiner and/or the appropriate Regional Office. The on-site examiner and the Regional Office will promptly respond to any concerns raised by an institution regarding a material supervisory determination. Informal resolution of disputes with the on-site examiner and the appropriate Regional Office is encouraged, but seeking such a resolution is not a condition to filing a request for review with the appropriate Division, either DCP, RMS, or the Division of Complex Institution Supervision and Resolution (CISR), or to filing a subsequent appeal with the Office under these Guidelines.
(1) An institution may file a request for review of a material supervisory determination with the Division that made the determination, either the Director, DCP, the Director, RMS, or the Director, CISR (Director or Division Director), 550 17th Street, NW, Room F-4076, Washington, DC 20429, within 60 calendar days following the institution's receipt of a report of examination containing a material supervisory determination or other written communication of a material supervisory determination. A request for review must be in writing and must include:
(a) A detailed description of the issues in dispute, the surrounding circumstances, the institution's position regarding the dispute and any arguments to support that position (including citation of any relevant statute, regulation, policy statement, or other authority), how resolution of the dispute would materially affect the institution, and whether a good-faith effort was made to resolve the dispute with the on-site examiner and the Regional Office; and
(b) A statement that the institution's board of directors or senior management has considered the merits of the request and has authorized that it be filed. Senior management is defined as the core group of individuals directly accountable to the board of directors for the sound and prudent day-to-day management of the institution. If an institution's senior management files an appeal, it must inform the board of directors of the substance of the appeal before filing and keep the board of directors informed of the appeal's status.
(2) Within 45 calendar days after receiving a request for review described in paragraph (1), the Division Director will:
(a) Review the appeal, considering whether the material supervisory determination is consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and policy, make his or her own supervisory determination without deferring to the judgments of either party, and issue a written determination on the request for review, setting forth the grounds for that determination; or
(b) refer the request for review to the Office for consideration as an appeal under Section G and provide written notice to the institution that the request for review has been referred to the Office.
(3) No appeal to the Office will be allowed unless an institution has first filed a timely request for review with the appropriate Division Director.
(4) In any decision issued pursuant to paragraph (2)(a) of this section, the Director will inform the institution of the 30-day time period for filing with the Office and will provide the mailing address for any appeal the institution may wish to file.
(5) The Division Director may request guidance from the Office or the Legal Division as to procedural or other questions relating to any request for review.
An institution that does not agree with the written determination rendered by the Division Director may appeal that
An appeal to the Office will be considered filed if the written appeal is received by the FDIC within 30 calendar days after the date of receipt of the Division Director's written determination or if the written appeal is placed in the U.S. mail within that 30-day period. The appeal should be sent to the address indicated on the Division Director's determination being appealed, or sent via email to
The appeal should be labeled to indicate that it is an appeal to the Office and should contain the name, address, and telephone number of the institution and any representative, as well as a copy of the Division Director's determination being appealed. If oral presentation is sought, that request should be included in the appeal. If expedited review is requested, the appeal should state the reason for the request. Only matters submitted to the appropriate Division Director in a request for review may be appealed to the Office. Evidence not presented for review to the Division Director is generally not permitted; such evidence may be submitted to the Office only if approved by the reviewing panel and with a reasonable time for the Division Director to review and respond. The institution should set forth all of the reasons, legal and factual, why it disagrees with the Division Director's determination. Nothing in the Office administrative process shall create any discovery or other such rights.
The burden of proof as to all matters at issue in the appeal, including timeliness of the appeal if timeliness is at issue, rests with the institution.
The Ombudsman and the Division Director each may submit views regarding the appeal to the Office within 30 calendar days of the date on which the appeal is received by the Office.
The Office will, if a request is made by the institution or by FDIC staff, allow an oral presentation. The Office may hear oral presentations in person, telephonically, electronically, or through other means agreed upon by the parties. If an oral presentation is held, the institution and FDIC staff will be allowed to present their positions on the issues raised in the appeal and to respond to any questions from the Office.
Appeals based upon similar facts and circumstances may be consolidated for expediency. An appeal may be dismissed by the Office if it is not timely filed, if the basis for the appeal is not discernable from the appeal, or if the institution moves to withdraw the appeal. The Office will decline to consider an appeal if the institution's right to appeal is not yet available under Section D(4), above.
The Office will be an appellate body and will make independent supervisory determinations. The Office will review the appeal for consistency with the policies, practices, and mission of the FDIC and the overall reasonableness of, and the support offered for, the positions advanced. The Office's review will be limited to the facts and circumstances as they existed prior to, or at the time the material supervisory determination was made, even if later discovered, and no consideration will be given to any facts or circumstances that occur or corrective action taken after the determination was made. The Office will not consider any aspect of an appeal that seeks to change or modify existing FDIC rules or policy. The Office will notify the institution, in writing, of its decision concerning the disputed material supervisory determination(s) within 45 days after the date the Office meets to consider the appeal, which meeting will be held within 90 days after either the date of the filing of the appeal or the date that the Division Director refers the appeal to the Office.
The Legal Division will provide counsel to the Office and generally advise the Office on FDIC policies and rules. If an appeal seeks to change or modify FDIC policies or rules, or raises a policy matter of first impression, the Office will, with the Legal Division's concurrence, refer the matter to the Chairperson's Office.
The Legal Division also will review decisions of the Office for consistency with applicable laws, regulations, and policies of the FDIC prior to their issuance. If the Legal Division determines that a decision is contrary to a law, regulation, or policy of the FDIC, the Office will revise the decision to conform with relevant laws, regulations, or policies.
Any communications between the Office and either supervisory staff or the appealing institution will be shared with the other party to the appeal, subject to limitations on disclosure.
Decisions of the Office will be published as soon as practicable, and the published decisions will be redacted to avoid disclosure of the name of the appealing institution and any information exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and the FDIC's document disclosure regulations found in 12 CFR 309. In cases in which redaction is deemed insufficient to prevent improper disclosure, published decisions may be presented in summary form. Published Office decisions may be cited as precedent in appeals to the Office. Annual reports on the Office's decisions and Division Directors' decisions with respect to institutions' requests for review of material supervisory determinations also will be published.
Appeals to the Office will be governed by these Guidelines. The Office, with the concurrence of the Legal Division, will retain discretion to waive any provision of the Guidelines for good cause. Supplemental rules governing the Office's operations may be adopted.
Institutions may request extensions of the time period for submitting appeals under these Guidelines from either the appropriate Division Director or the Office, as appropriate. If a filing under these Guidelines is due on a Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday, the filing may be made on the next business day.
The subject matter of a material supervisory determination for which either an appeal to the Office has been filed, or a final Office decision issued, is not eligible for consideration by the Ombudsman. However, pursuant to Section (G)(4) of these Guidelines, the Ombudsman may submit views to the Office for its consideration in connection with any pending appeal.
In the event that a material supervisory determination subject to a request for review is the joint product of the FDIC and a State regulatory authority, the Director, DCP, the Director, RMS, or the Director, CISR, as appropriate, will promptly notify the appropriate State regulatory authority of the request, provide the regulatory authority with a copy of the institution's request for review and any other related materials, and solicit the regulatory authority's views regarding the merits of the request before making a determination. In the event that an appeal is subsequently filed with the Office, the Office will notify the institution and the State regulatory authority of its decision. Once the Office has issued its determination, any other issues that may remain between the institution and the State authority will be left to those parties to resolve.
The use of the procedures set forth in these Guidelines by any institution will not affect, delay, or impede any formal or informal supervisory or enforcement action in progress during the appeal or affect the FDIC's authority to take any supervisory or enforcement action against that institution.
Any application or request for approval made to the FDIC by an institution that has appealed a material supervisory determination that relates to, or could affect the approval of, the application or request will not be considered until a final decision concerning the appeal is made unless otherwise requested by the institution.
The FDIC has an experienced examination workforce and is proud of its professionalism and dedication. FDIC policy prohibits any retaliation, abuse, or retribution by an agency examiner or any FDIC personnel against an institution. Such behavior against an institution that appeals a material supervisory determination constitutes unprofessional conduct and will subject the examiner or other personnel to appropriate disciplinary or remedial action. Institutions that believe they have been retaliated against are encouraged to contact the Regional Director for the appropriate FDIC region. Any institution that believes or has any evidence that it has been subject to retaliation may file a complaint with the Director, Office of the Ombudsman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 3501 Fairfax Drive, Suite E-2022, Arlington, Virginia, 22226, explaining the circumstances and the basis for such belief or evidence and requesting that the complaint be investigated and appropriate disciplinary or remedial action taken. The Office of the Ombudsman will work with the appropriate Division Director to resolve the allegation of retaliation.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.
Virtual meeting. Note: Because of the covid-19 pandemic, we will conduct the open meeting virtually. If you would like to access the meeting, see the instructions below.
This meeting will be open to the public. to access the virtual meeting, go to the commission's website
Judith Ingram, Press Officer; Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement; request for comment.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before February 24, 2021.
Interested parties may file comments online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
James Trilling (202-326-3497), Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained at
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, 2021. Write “Everalbum, Inc.; File No. 192 3172” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the agency's heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We strongly encourage you to submit your comments online through the
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Everalbum, Inc.; File No. 192 3172” 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 D), 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 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website at
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.
Visit the FTC website at
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Everalbum, Inc., also doing business as Ever and Paravision (“Everalbum” or “Respondent”). The proposed consent order (“proposed order”) has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission again will review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.
Since 2015, Everalbum has operated “Ever,” a photo storage and organization application available as an iOS or Android mobile application (“app”) and in web and desktop formats. Ever allows consumers to upload photos and videos (collectively, “content”) from mobile devices, computers, or social media or cloud-based storage service accounts to Ever's cloud servers. In February 2017, Everalbum launched a new feature of the Ever mobile app, called “Friends.” The Friends feature uses face recognition to organize users' photos by faces of the people who appear in them. When Everalbum launched the Friends feature, it enabled face recognition by default for all users of the Ever mobile app.
Everalbum's application of face recognition to Ever app users' content has not been limited to providing the Friends feature. The Commission's proposed complaint alleges that, in four instances, Everalbum used images it extracted from Ever users' photos in the development of face recognition technology. In one such instance, Everalbum used the resulting face recognition technology both in the Ever app and to build the face recognition services offered by its enterprise brand, Paravision (formerly Ever AI).
The proposed two-count complaint alleges that Everalbum violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act by misrepresenting the company's practices with respect to Ever users' content.
Proposed complaint Count I alleges that Everalbum misrepresented the circumstances under which the company would apply face recognition to Ever users' content. According to the proposed complaint, Everalbum published a help article entitled “What is Face Recognition?” on its website in July 2018. The proposed complaint alleges that the help article represented that the Ever app's “Friends” feature was not active—and, therefore, that Everalbum would not apply face recognition technology to users' content—unless users affirmatively enabled the feature. The proposed complaint further alleges that the help article was false or misleading, because, until April 2019, for users in most geographic locations, Everalbum applied face recognition to users' content by default and users could not use an app setting to turn off face recognition.
Proposed complaint Count II alleges that Everalbum misrepresented that the company would delete the content of Ever users who chose to deactivate their Ever accounts. According to the proposed complaint, when Ever users sought to deactivate their accounts, Everalbum presented them with pop-up messages that represented that account deactivation would result in Everalbum deleting their content. The proposed complaint alleges that Everalbum also made a similar representation in response to consumer inquiries and in its privacy policy. Despite its representations, Everalbum allegedly did not delete any users' content upon account deactivation and instead stored the content indefinitely.
The proposed order contains provisions to address Respondent's conduct and prevent it from engaging in the same or similar acts or practices in
Part II of the proposed order requires Respondent to clearly and conspicuously disclose, and obtain consumers' affirmative express consent for, all purposes for which it will use or share User's Biometric Information before using the information to create data needed for face recognition analysis or to develop face recognition models or algorithms.
Part III of the proposed order requires Respondent to delete (A) photos and videos of Ever app Users who requested deactivation of their accounts, (B) face recognition data that it created without obtaining Users' affirmative express consent, and (C) models and algorithms it developed in whole or in part using images from Users' photos.
Parts IV through VII of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions, which include recordkeeping requirements and provisions requiring Respondent to provide information or documents necessary for the Commission to monitor compliance. Part VIII of the proposed order states that the order will remain in effect for 20 years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify in any way the proposed order's terms.
By direction of the Commission.
Today's facial recognition technology is fundamentally flawed and reinforces harmful biases. I support efforts to enact moratoria or otherwise severely restrict its use. Until such time, it is critical that the FTC meaningfully enforce existing law to deprive wrongdoers of technologies they build through unlawful collection of Americans' facial images and likenesses.
The case of Everalbum is a troubling illustration of just some of the problems with facial recognition. Everalbum operates a business line called Paravision, which developed and marketed facial recognition technology, including to clients in the security and air travel industries.
As outlined in the complaint, Everalbum made promises that users could choose not to have facial recognition technology applied to their images, and that users could delete the images and their account. In addition to those promises, Everalbum had clear evidence that many of the photo app's users did not want to be roped into facial recognition. The company broke its promises, which constitutes illegal deception according to the FTC's complaint. This matter and the FTC's proposed resolution are noteworthy for several reasons.
First, the FTC's proposed order requires Everalbum to forfeit the fruits of its deception. Specifically, the company must delete the facial recognition technologies enhanced by any improperly obtained photos. Commissioners have previously voted to allow data protection law violators to retain algorithms and technologies that derive much of their value from ill-gotten data.
Second, the settlement does not require the defendant to pay any penalty. This is unfortunate. To avoid this in the future, the FTC needs to take further steps to trigger penalties, damages, and other relief for facial recognition and data protection abuses. Commissioners have voted to enter into scores of settlements that address deceptive practices regarding the collection, use, and sharing of personal data. There does not appear to be any meaningful dispute that these practices are illegal. However, since Commissioners have not restated this precedent into a rule under Section 18 of the FTC Act, we are unable to seek penalties and other relief for even the most egregious offenses when we first discover them.
Finally, the Everalbum matter makes it clear why it is important to maintain states' authority to protect personal data. Because the people of Illinois, Washington, and Texas passed laws related to facial recognition and biometric identifiers, Everalbum took greater care when it came to individuals in these states.
With the tsunami of data being collected on individuals, we need all hands on deck to keep these companies in check. State and local governments have rightfully taken steps to enact bans, moratoria, and other restrictions on the use of these technologies. While special interests are actively lobbying for federal legislation to delete state data protection laws, it will be important for Congress to resist these efforts. Broad federal preemption would severely undercut this multi-front approach and leave more consumers less protected.
It will be critical for the Commission, the states, and regulators around the globe to pursue additional enforcement actions to hold accountable providers of facial recognition technology who make
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Carol A. Salata at 240-627-3727;
Technology description follows:
Human metapneumovirus (hMPV) infections have been shown as a common cause of upper and lower respiratory diseases such as bronchiolitis and pneumonia in young children, the elderly, and other immunocompromised individuals. Studies show that infections by the non-segmented negative strand RNA virus begin with attachment and entry of viral glycoproteins that mediate fusion with host cellular membranes. Like for the human respiratory syncytial virus (hRSV), a viral entry is initiated by the fusion (F) protein. Given its role in hMPV entry, the F protein has thus been a target for eliciting neutralizing antibodies and development of novel protein-based therapeutic vaccines.
Researchers at the Vaccine Research Center (VRC) of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) developed improved recombinant human metapneumovirus (hMPV) F proteins stabilized in the prefusion conformation that can elicit potent neutralizing antibodies against infection. Double and triple stabilized candidates were designed with inter-and intraprotomer disulfide mutations that increase protein production and show improved antigenic recognition by prefusion-specific antibodies. These second-generation immunogens constitute an improvement over the first generation constructs and are characterized by additional stabilization that results in optimal neutralization responses.
The second-generation stabilized prefusion hMPV F immunogens may be an ideal vaccine immunogen to elicit broad potent neutralizing antibodies against metapneumovirus infection, particularly in children and immunocompromised adults.
This technology is available for licensing for commercial development in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
• A promising vaccine immunogen to elicit broad potent neutralizing antibodies against metapneumovirus infection, particularly in children and immunocompromised adults.
• There are no approved vaccines or therapeutics against the second leading cause of pediatric viral lower respiratory tract infection in infants and young children.
• Second-generation hMPV F immunogens induce higher titer neutralizing responses than first-generation versions in mice.
Battles, M.B.,
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Cancer Institute, an institute of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an Exclusive Patent License to practice the inventions embodied in the Patents and Patent Applications listed in the Supplementary Information section of this Notice to Ziopharm Oncology, Inc. (“Ziopharm”), headquartered in Boston, MA.
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the National Cancer Institute's Technology Transfer Center on or before February 9, 2021 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent applications, inquiries, and comments relating to the contemplated Exclusive Patent License should be directed to: Andrew Burke, Ph.D., Senior Technology Transfer Manager, NCI Technology Transfer Center, Telephone: (240) 276-5484; Email:
The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned and/or exclusively licensed to the government of the United States of America.
The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide, and the fields of use may be limited to the following:
“Development, manufacture and commercialization of autologous, peripheral blood T cell therapy products engineered by transposon-mediated gene transfer to express T cell receptors reactive to mutated P53, as claimed in the Licensed Patent Rights, for the treatment of human cancers. Specifically excluded from this field of use are CRISPR-engineered peripheral blood T cell therapy products for the treatment of human cancers.
Development, manufacture and commercialization of companion diagnostics approved or cleared by the FDA or equivalent foreign regulatory agency for Licensee-proprietary T cell therapy products.”
Intellectual Property Group B is primarily directed to isolated TCRs reactive to mutated tumor protein 53 (TP53 or P53), within the context of several HLAs.
This Notice is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing, and the prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published Notice, the National Cancer Institute receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
In response to this Notice, the public may file comments or objections. Comments and objections, other than those in the form of a license application, will not be treated confidentially and may be made publicly available.
License applications submitted in response to this Notice will be presumed to contain business confidential information and any release of information from these license applications will be made only as required and upon a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the National Cancer Institute's Technology Transfer Center on or before February 9, 2021 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent applications, inquiries, and comments relating to the contemplated Exclusive Patent License should be directed to: Richard T. Girards, Jr., Esq., MBA, Senior Technology Transfer Manager, National Institutes of Health, NCI Technology Transfer Center by email (
1. United States Provisional Patent Application No. 61/927,904, filed 15 January 2014 (HHS Reference No. E-003-2014-0-US-01);
2. United States Patent No. 10,323,083, issued 18 June 2019 (HHS Reference No. E-003-2014-0-US-06);
3. United States Patent Application No. 16/391,101, filed 22 April 2019
4. International Patent Application No. PCT/US2015/011433, filed 14 January 2015 (HHS Reference No. E-003-2014-0-PCT-02);
5. Australia Patent No. 2015206515, issued 26 March 2020 (HHS Reference No. E-003-2014-0-AU-03);
6. Canada Patent Application No. 2931005, filed 14 January 2015 (HHS Reference No. E-003-2014-0-CA-04);
7. European Patent No. 3 094 350 B1, issued 04 March 2020 (HHS Reference No. E-003-2014-0-EP-05) and all of its national validations;
8. European Patent Application No. 19219282.1, filed 14 January 2015 (HHS Reference No. E-003-2014-0-EP-11); and
9. any and all other U.S. and ex-U.S. patents and patent applications claiming priority to any one of the foregoing, now or in the future.
The patent and patent application rights in these inventions have been assigned and/or exclusively licensed to the government of the United States of America.
The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide and the fields of use may be limited to the following: The development, manufacture, distribution, sale and use of one or more fusion proteins for the treatment of humans with short stature associated with one or more genetic conditions.
These technologies disclose,
This Notice is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing, and the prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published Notice, the National Cancer Institute receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.
In response to this Notice, the public may file comments or objections. Comments and objections, other than those in the form of a license application, will not be treated confidentially, and may be made publicly available.
License applications submitted in response to this Notice will be presumed to contain business confidential information and any release of information from these license applications will be made only as required and upon a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than March 26, 2021) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0019 in the subject line and the agency name. Please use the following method to submit comments:
Due to COVID-19-related restrictions, CBP has temporarily suspended its ability to receive public comments by mail.
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before April 26, 2021.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2102, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The date of May 18, 2021 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before April 26, 2021.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2104, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
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 Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5564 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Dacia Rogers, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, (Room 3178), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-3374, (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. Rogers.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
• Certified copies of any State, county, or municipal licenses that may be required of the business to engage in the type of business activity for which it was formed. Where applicable, the PHA must obtain a certified copy of its corporate charter or other organizational document that verifies that the business was properly formed in accordance with State law.
• Certification that shows the business is owned by residents, disclosure documents that indicate all owners of the business and each owner's percentage of the business along with sufficient evidence that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the PHA that the business has the ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of the proposed contract.
• Certification as to the number of contracts awarded, and the dollar amount of each contract award received under the alternative procurement process; and
• Contract award documents, proof of bonding documents, independent cost estimates and comparable price analyses.
The national average PHA staff salary = $51,000
The calculation for costs is as follows: 76 PHAs × 24 hours = 1,824 hours × $24 = $43,776.
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 Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD.
Notice.
This notice solicits public comment for a period of 60 days, consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), on the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan (AFHMP) forms. The AFHMP forms collect information on the advertising and outreach activities of owners/developers of HUD Multifamily, Single Family, and Condominium/Cooperative Housing projects to attract applicants/buyers throughout the housing market area regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments.
1.
2.
To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the notice.
DeAndra Cullen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Legislative Initiatives and Outreach, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410, at 202-402-4115 (this is not a toll-free number) or
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
HUD is requesting that the OMB approve the revision of forms: HUD-935.2A Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan—Multifamily Housing, HUD-935.2B Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan—Single Family Housing, and HUD-935.2C Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan—Condominiums or Cooperatives. These forms assist HUD in fulfilling its duty under the Fair Housing Act to administer its programs and activities relating to housing and urban development in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, by promoting a condition in which individuals of similar income levels in the same housing market area have available to them a like range of housing choices, regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status. This collection also promotes compliance with Executive Order 11063, which requires Federal agencies to take all necessary and appropriate action to prevent discrimination in federally insured and subsidized housing. Under the AFHM Regulations (24 CFR part 200, subpart M), all applicants for participation in Federal Housing Administration (FHA) subsidized and unsubsidized housing programs that involve the development or rehabilitation of the following types of housing must submit an AFHM Plan on a prescribed form: (1) Multifamily projects or manufactured home parks of five or more lots, units, or spaces; (2) a single family property, where the property is located in a subdivision and the builder or developer intends to sell five or more properties in the subdivision, and a lender is making an initial application for mortgage insurance; or (3) dwelling units, when the applicant's participation in FHA housing programs had exceeded or would thereby exceed development of five or more such dwelling units during the year preceding the application (not counting the development of single family dwelling units for occupancy by a mortgagor on property owned by the mortgagor and in which the applicant had no interest prior to entering into the contract for construction or rehabilitation). If this information was not collected, it would prevent HUD from ensuring compliance with affirmative fair housing marketing requirements.
The revision to the HUD-935.2A is to clarify the instructions involving when respondents must submit an updated form for HUD review. In addition, there have been formatting changes to clarify when multiple responses are allowed versus singular response in a dropdown format for occupancy and reason for updated submission. There is also a change made to the references to the Census resources for accurate data reporting and prioritization of Decennial Census data. Lastly, the racial and ethnic demographic fields have been updated in the worksheets to match the categories provided in Census data. The HUD-935.2B and C have been edited to include internet and social media advertising.
For the HUD 935.2.B & C: On an annual basis, there are approximately 30 respondents that submit new plans.
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), HUD is specifically soliciting comment 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,
In addition, HUD requests comments on ways to modernize marketing given the rise of internet and social media advertising.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (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.
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: Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5534 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This Demonstration will allow participating public housing agencies (PHAs) throughout the country to implement housing mobility programs by offering mobility-related services to increase the number of voucher families with children living in opportunity areas. Participating PHAs will work together in their regions to adopt administrative policies that further enable housing mobility, increase landlord participation, and reduce barriers for families to move across PHA jurisdictions through portability. Eligible families that consent to participate in the Demonstration are randomly assigned to either receive mobility-related services or to not receive services.
Through the Demonstration, HUD will implement, test, and evaluate whether housing mobility programs expand access to opportunity neighborhoods. The Demonstration will roll out in two phases over a period of approximately six years. The Phase 1 Evaluation has a five-year period of performance and will evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive set of mobility-related services at no more than 10 sites. For voucher holders, outcomes of the mobility-related services are hypothesized to be increases in the number of families who move to lower poverty areas. The Phase 1 evaluation will also document the implementation of the Demonstration and analyze the cost-effectiveness of mobility-related services.
Data collection efforts include the families that are part of the treatment and control groups, as well as PHA and mobility-related services staff, and landlords of properties participating in the HCV program. Data will be gathered through a variety of methods including informational interviews and discussions, direct observation, and analysis of administrative records.
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,
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
The General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, Todd Richardson, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to submitter, Nacheshia Foxx, who is the Federal Register Liaison for HUD, for purposes of publication in the
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
Dacia Rogers, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, (Room 3178), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-708-3000, extension 3374, (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. Rogers.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
Approximately 1,700 HUD-participating agencies provide housing counseling services nationwide currently. Of these, approximately 975 have been directly approved by HUD. HUD maintains a list of these agencies so that individuals in need of assistance can easily access the nearest HUD-approved Housing Counseling Agency (HCA) via HUD's website, an automated 1800 Hotline, or a smart phone application. Form HUD-9900, Application for Approval as a Housing Counseling Agency, is necessary to make sure that people who contact a HUD-approved HCA can have confidence they will receive quality service and these agencies meet HUD requirements for approval.
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
(5) 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, 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 202-402-5564 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Dacia Rogers, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 3178, Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (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. Rogers.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
1. Description of the designated housing plan;
2. Justification for the designation;
3. Availability of alternative housing resources for the non-designated population(s);
4. Impact on the availability of accessible housing;
5. A statement that existing tenants in good standing will not be evicted;
6. A statement of the resources that will be made available if the PHA offers voluntary relocation benefits; and
7. Information describing how the DHP is consistent with any outstanding court orders, lawsuits, investigations, Voluntary Compliance Agreements (VCAs), Conciliation Agreements, or Letters of Findings or Determinations, etc., including for example, actions under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Age Discrimination Act, the Fair Housing Act, or the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The previous estimation of 585 annual burden hours has been reduced to 270. This change is based on the average number of Plans submitted between Calendar Years 2017, 2018 and 2019. HUD expects that the number of respondents will continue to decline because of the trend in Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) repositioning their developments and moving out of the public housing program.
The national average PHA staff salary = $51,000
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 Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (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 comments 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: Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone (202) 402-5534 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
The General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, Todd Richardson, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to submitter, Nacheshia Foxx, who is the Federal Register Liaison for HUD, for purposes of publication in the
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment..
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for
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) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comments in response to these questions.
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
HUD also proposes to strengthen the HECM for Purchase property eligibility requirements by requiring inspection documentation for newly built properties that will serve as collateral for HECM financing. Currently, the HECM for Purchase program requires mortgagees to submit a Certificate of Occupancy, or its equivalent, as evidence that the property is complete and habitable as a condition of FHA insurance. In the near future, mortgagees may be required to complete and submit the following forms to FHA: (1) Form HUD-92541, Builder's
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) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comments in response to the proposed changes.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 16, 2020, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Ventria Bioscience Inc. of Junction City, Kansas. Supplements to the complaint were filed on December 16, and 22, 2020. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain plant-derived recombinant human serum albumins (“rHSA”) and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,618,951 (“the '951 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,609,416 (“the '416 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complaint also alleges violations of section 337 based on the importation into the United States, or in the sale of, certain plant-derived recombinant human serum albumins (“rHSA”) and products containing same by reason of false designation of origin, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine:
(a) Whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-3 and 11-13 of the '951 patent and claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 12, 18-20, and 22-25 of the '416 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337; and
(b) Whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(A) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, or in the sale of, certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of false designation of origin.
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is: Plant-derived recombinant human serum albumins (“rHSA”) and products containing the same, such as lyophilized powders and liquid suspensions primarily containing rHSA along with naturally-occurring plant expression by-products, such as plant heat shock proteins and/or plant fatty acids, as well as cell culture media supplements formulated with such rHSA products.
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Ventria Bioscience Inc., 2718 Industrial Drive, Junction City, Kansas 66441.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainant of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
January 13, 2021.
Keysha Martinez (202-205-2136), 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 (
On August 12, 2020, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject investigations (85 FR 54593, September 2, 2020). In light of the federal holiday on January 20, 2021, the Commission is revising the final comments deadline to no later than 10 a.m., January 21, 2021.
For further information concerning this proceeding, see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson on January 15, 2021. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain cellular communications infrastructure systems, components thereof, and products containing same. The complaint names as respondents: Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. of Korea and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, NJ. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3525”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 2, 2020, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of ARK Diagnostics, Inc. of Fremont, California. A supplement to the complaint was filed on December 2, 2020 and an amended complaint was filed on December 23, 2020. The complaint, as amended, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain gabapentin immunoassay kits and test strips, components thereof, and methods therefor by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,828,665 (“the '665 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 10,203,345 (“the '345 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Katherine Hiner, Office of Docket Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 14, 17, 18, 20, and 21 of the '665 patent; and claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 19, 20, 26, and 27 of the '345 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “gabapentin immunoassays kits, gabapentin-specific test strips, multi-drug test kits and strips that test for gabapentin among other drugs, and components of such kits and test strips”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainant of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
On January 14, 2021, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina in
The United States filed a complaint under Clean Air Act (CAA) Sections 113(b) and 167, 42 U.S.C. 7413(b) and 7477, seeking injunctive relief for the Defendant's alleged failure to (1) obtain appropriate permits before modifying and subsequently operating Furnace No. 1 at its glass manufacturing facility in Laurinburg, North Carolina, and (2) install and employ the best available control technology (BACT) to control emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO
Under the proposed decree, the Defendant will have to (1) install equipment on Furnace No. 1 to control emissions of NO
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $21.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On January 15, 2021, the Department of Justice and the State of California on behalf of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Central District of California pertaining to environmental contamination at the Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid Operable Unit (“DNAPL OU”) of the Montrose Chemical Corp. Superfund Site in Los Angeles County, California. This proposed Consent Decree was lodged in the case
The proposed Consent Decree, titled in full “Partial Consent Decree (Montrose Superfund Site—Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) Operable Unit)”, resolves certain claims or potential claims under Sections 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9606, 9607, as well as certain potential state law claims, in connection with environmental contamination at the DNAPL OU. The settling defendants are TFCF America, Inc.; Bayer CropScience Inc.; Montrose Chemical Corporation of California; and Stauffer Management Company LLC. The Consent Decree requires the settling defendants to perform the remedy at the DNAPL OU, which consists primarily of in-situ thermal treatment (electrical resistance heating) and soil vapor extraction with an associated land use covenant, and to make a payment of $340,000.00 toward the United States' unreimbursed DNAPL OU past costs and a payment of $61,798.11 towards DTSC's DNAPL OU past costs. The proposed Consent Decree also requires the settling defendants to pay the United States' and DTSC's future response costs for overseeing the work the settling defendants will be performing at the DNAPL OU.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $133.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) for the Consent Decree, payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the appendices and signature pages, the cost is $21.50.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). We publish notice in the
NARA must receive comments by March 11, 2021.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods. You must cite the control number, which appears on the records schedule in parentheses after the name of the agency that submitted the schedule.
•
•
Kimberly Keravuori, Regulatory and External Policy Program Manager, by email at
We are publishing notice of records schedules in which agencies propose to
In addition, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or states that the schedule has agency-wide applicability. It also provides the control number assigned to each schedule, which you will need if you submit comments on that schedule. We have uploaded the records schedules and accompanying appraisal memoranda to the
We will post comments, including any personal information and attachments, to the public docket unchanged. Because comments are public, you are responsible for ensuring that you do not include any confidential or other information that you or a third party may not wish to be publicly posted. If you want to submit a comment with confidential information or cannot otherwise use the
We will consider all comments submitted by the posted deadline and consult as needed with the Federal agency seeking the disposition authority. After considering comments, we will post on
We will post schedules on our website in the Records Control Schedule (RCS) Repository, at
Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives or to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking continuing administrative, legal, research, or other value. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
Agencies may not destroy Federal records without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist grants this approval only after thorough consideration of the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value. Public review and comment on these records schedules is part of the Archivist's consideration process.
1. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Environmental Policies and Procedures (DAA-0095-2020-0001).
2. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Unaccompanied Alien Children and Refugee Programs (DAA-0292-2019-0009).
3. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Information Exchange System (DAA-0468-2019-0003).
4. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Non Employee Fellowship Records (DAA-0443-2020-0001).
5. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Visiting Fellow and Scientist Work Authorization (DAA-0443-2020-0002).
6. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Certificates of Confidentiality (DAA-0511-2021-0001).
7. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, American Baptist Church Settlement Records (DAA-0566-2021-0001).
8. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Citizen Encounter Photographs (DAA-0568-2019-0002).
9. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism Records (DAA-0568-2019-0009).
10. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, Sex Offender Data System (DAA-0129-2019-0006).
11. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Qualified Intermediary Application and Account Management System (DAA-0058-2020-0003).
12. Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, EEO Audits (DAA-0173-2020-0003).
13. General Services Administration, Agency-wide, Professional Services To and With Other Agencies (DAA-0269-2020-0005).
14. General Services Administration, Agency-wide, Employee Training Records (DAA-0269-2020-0010).
15. National Archives and Records Administration, Government-wide, GRS 4.2—Information Access and Protection Records (DAA-GRS-2020-0002).
16. National Archives and Records Administration, Government-wide, GRS 5.6—Security Management Records (DAA-GRS-2021-0001).
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit applications received.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act in the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by February 24, 2021. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Office of
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address, 703-292-8030, or
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541, 45 CFR 670), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
On March 27, 2019, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On December 4, 2019, the Commission, acting through authority delegated to the Division of Trading and Markets (“Division”),
In response to the Petition for Review, the Commission has conducted a de novo review of FINRA's proposal, giving careful consideration to the entire record—including FINRA's amended proposal, the Petition for Review, and all comments and statements submitted—to determine whether the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities association. Under Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act, the Commission must approve the proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) if the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the applicable rules and regulations thereunder; if it does not make such a finding, the Commission must disapprove the proposed rule change.
The Commission has considered whether the proposal is consistent with the Act, including Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, which requires that the rules of a national securities association be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to 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, and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers, to fix minimum profits, to impose any schedule or fix rates of commissions, allowances, discounts, or other fees to be charged by its members, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by the Act matters not related to the purposes of the Act or the administration of the association;
For the reasons discussed further herein, FINRA has met its burden to show that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act, and this order sets aside the Approval Order and approves FINRA's proposed rule change, as amended. In particular, the Commission concludes that the record before the Commission demonstrates that FINRA's New Issue Reference Data Service should promote just and equitable principles of trade and foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in newly issued corporate bonds, consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act. In addition, the record demonstrates that the New Issue Reference Data Service should not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Therefore, and as explained further below, the Commission finds the proposal consistent with Sections 15A(b)(6) and 15A(b)(9) of the Act.
FINRA proposes to establish the New Issue Reference Data Service, which would provide a central depository for public dissemination of new issue corporate bond reference data. FINRA proposes to amend Rule 6760 (Obligation to Provide Notice)
FINRA proposes to require underwriters to report all data fields for Corporate Debt Securities, as defined in FINRA's rules, prior to the first transaction in the security. FINRA would disseminate the corporate bond new issue reference data collected under Rule 6760 upon receipt.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association.
As discussed below, the Commission believes that currently there is an inefficiency in the collection and availability of reference data
The Commission believes the requirement for underwriters to report the reference data fields to FINRA prior to the first transaction in the security, coupled with FINRA's dissemination of the new issue reference data immediately upon receipt, will allow all market participants to have timely, basic information that is important for the identification, valuation, and settlement of a newly issued corporate bond in order to participate in trading in the secondary market without delay, whether through electronic trading venues, over the phone or through other methods. Improved reference data transparency should promote market efficiency and fair competition and enable broader participation by all market participants when a new issue corporate bond begins trading, which should also promote improved secondary market liquidity and lower costs when secondary trading begins. In sum, the Commission believes that FINRA's proposal will “promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in” newly issued corporate bonds, and “remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market” with respect to the market in such securities, consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act. Furthermore, the Commission will monitor the progress of the New Issue Reference Data Service and its use by market participants and
The Commission received a number of comment letters addressing the proposed rule change's consistency with the Act, specifically focusing on (1) whether information asymmetry exists in the current marketplace for new issue reference data; (2) the requirements for information reporting and distribution under the proposal; (3) FINRA's role as the centralized data source; (4) the proposal's burden on underwriters; (5) the proposal's effect on competition among reference data vendors; and (6) the lack of information regarding fees for the New Issue Reference Data Service.
First, the Commission addresses comments regarding the justification for the proposal and the proposal's consistency with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act in Sections III.A, III.B and III.C below. The Commission believes that the record demonstrates three things clearly: (1) There is an inefficiency in the collection and availability of reference data that results in an information asymmetry in the corporate bond market that can impede secondary market trading by many market participants to their disadvantage because many market participants, including investors, intermediaries, trading platforms, and data vendors, do not have accurate, complete and timely access to corporate bond new issue reference data on the day a new issue begins trading in the secondary market; (2) the proposed New Issue Reference Data Service is reasonably designed to address this information asymmetry by providing reference data important for the identification, valuation, and settlement of newly issued corporate bonds to market participants when secondary trading begins; and (3) FINRA, as an SRO that is subject to Commission oversight, is an appropriate entity to provide market participants with accurate, complete, impartial and timely access to such corporate bond new issue reference data. As discussed further below, providing all market participants, including data vendors, on an impartial basis with basic information concerning a newly issued bond that market participants need in order to identify and value corporate bonds and settle corporate bond transactions should promote competition among market participants and improve the corporate bond market's overall function by enabling a broader array of market participants and service providers to engage in this market on the day a newly issued corporate bond begins trading in the secondary market. As a result, the Commission finds that FINRA's proposal is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act.
Second, the Commission addresses comments that the proposed information required to be collected and the timing for reporting such information under the proposal would be burdensome to underwriters in Section III.D. As discussed below, the Commission finds that such burdens imposed on underwriters by the proposal, including smaller underwriters, would be limited because of such underwriters' existing data collection and reporting practices with respect to the information FINRA proposes to be reported. Furthermore, the Commission believes that any burdens on underwriters are justified by the benefits of the proposal.
Third, in Section III.E, the Commission addresses arguments raised that the proposal is inconsistent with Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act because it would burden competition by, among other things, reducing competition among reference data vendors and decreasing investment and innovation in the marketplace, ultimately leading to increased costs. The Commission finds that the proposal will not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As explained below, the impact on competition is uncertain. It is possible that FINRA's proposal will have a positive impact on competition among data vendors. Additionally, the limited set of data proposed to be reported and disseminated should not supplant the demand for a more comprehensive reference database with enhanced data sets that contain additional fields that are not reported to or disseminated by FINRA. As a result, the Commission believes any burden on competition would both be limited and justified by the evidence in the record demonstrating an information asymmetry that can disadvantage many market participants due to the lack of timely access to basic information that is important for the identification, valuation and settlement of newly issued corporate bonds at the time a bond begins trading in the secondary market.
Finally, in Section III.F the Commission addresses arguments raised that (1) the Commission could not fully assess the proposal's consistency with the Act without knowing either the proposed fees for, or the cost to build, the New Issue Reference Data Service; (2) separating the fee proposal into a subsequent filing allows FINRA to avoid regulatory and public scrutiny of the proposed fees; and (3) the Commission erred in failing to find that the proposal was consistent with Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act. As explained below, the Commission disagrees that it cannot adequately assess the proposal's consistency with the Act and its economic effects without knowing the fees that FINRA will charge for the proposed reference data service or the costs to build such service. Furthermore, the proposed fees may be properly filed as an immediately effective fee filing pursuant to Section 19 of the Act and the Commission is not required to make a finding that the proposal is consistent with Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act.
The Commission received several comments in support of and in opposition to FINRA's proposal.
Commenters stated that access to reference data is necessary for valuing, trading and settling corporate bonds.
Several commenters asserted that a centralized data reporting requirement for new corporate bond issues would increase the efficiency of the corporate bond market and reduce trading and research costs.
On the other hand, many commenters asserted that FINRA did not provide sufficient justification to support the need for the creation of the New Issue Reference Data Service as required under Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act.
In addition, Petitioner stated that FINRA provided no evidence that the proposal would provide market participants with more complete, accurate, and timely data about new issues; reduce broken trades and errors;
In its response to the petitioner, FINRA stated that its proposal is “designed to address a particular problem in today's market—namely, that a number of market participants are not reasonably able to gain access to timely, comprehensive, and accurate corporate bond new issue reference data when the bonds begin trading.”
FINRA stated that the robust public record supporting the proposal begins with the unanimous FIMSAC Recommendation.
In addition, FINRA stated that it performed its “own independent outreach to eleven market participants—
In response to comments that the need for the proposal is negated by data on the growth of electronic bond trading, FINRA argued that such data do not mitigate the concerns that the proposal is designed to address—namely, the lack of broadly available and accessible new issue reference data on the first day of secondary market trading.
In response to comments on the proposal, FINRA provided an analysis of corporate bond transactional data reported to FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (“TRACE”), which FINRA stated is consistent with the problematic market conditions described by FIMSAC participants and commenters, and provides additional support for the proposal.
In response to comments that FINRA did not provide an estimate of costs and benefits,
In its proposal, FINRA stated that it expects that the New Issue Reference Data Service will increase the transparency of the corporate bond market, especially around the issuance period, and that such increased transparency will benefit the market, including investors, trading platforms, clearing firms, data providers, issuers, and underwriters, in a number of ways.
On the other hand, FINRA stated in its proposal that the New Issue Reference Data Service may impose costs on underwriters to report the additional reference data to FINRA through system upgrades or use of third-party vendors to report, and recognized that smaller underwriters may be burdened disproportionally.
The Commission understands that currently there is an inefficiency in the collection of reference data for newly issued corporate bonds and that this inefficiency results in an information asymmetry in the market for newly issued corporate bond reference data. This information asymmetry exists because some market participants have access to reference data necessary for identifying, valuing and settling newly issued corporate bonds at the time such bonds begin trading in the secondary market, while many other market participants lack that information at the time secondary trading begins. This information asymmetry inhibits many market participants from transacting in the secondary market for newly issued bonds at the time those bonds begin trading which can disadvantage those market participants.
The collection of reference data by market participants currently is inefficient and the challenges associated with collecting this data and making it available broadly to market participants in time to trade in the secondary market are significant.
The Commission believes that the information asymmetry and resulting market inefficiency that exists can disadvantage many market participants because it hinders timely market-wide participation in the secondary market when a newly issued bond begins to trade, potentially negatively impacting secondary market liquidity. Comments received from investors, trading platforms, and data vendors support this finding. Commenters stated that the inability to participate in the secondary market raised a number of concerns.
In sum, the record reflects that an information asymmetry that can disadvantage many market participants currently exists in the market for newly issued corporate bond reference data. In the Commission's view, FINRA's proposal, as discussed further below, is reasonably designed to address this information asymmetry in the current market to the benefit of the marketplace.
The Commission received several comments relating to the proposed data fields required to be reported and the timing for submission of such data fields. Several commenters requested that FINRA make modifications to and/or provide further clarity regarding certain data fields.
One commenter stated that it could be challenging for underwriters to provide all of the data elements prior to the first trade and requested that the proposal be modified so that underwriters would only be required to report certain information prior to the first trade, with the remaining information required to be reported within 60 minutes of the first trade.
Commenters also requested various other clarifications to the proposal.
In response to the FIMSAC Letter, FINRA incorporated the FIMSAC's additional supporting rationale for the data fields into its filing and added the six additional data fields suggested by the FIMSAC.
In response to comments regarding the timing of the reporting requirement, FINRA stated that it believes it is important to maintain the proposal's pre-first transaction reporting requirement.
FINRA further stated that it recognizes that commenters have requested further clarification of several data fields,
By helping eliminate the existing information asymmetry in access to reference data, the proposed collection and dissemination of the proposed data elements should promote (i) competition among market participants by facilitating broader market participation in the secondary market of a newly issued corporate bond on the first day that bond trades, (ii) improved secondary market liquidity when a bond becomes available to trade in the secondary market and lower cost of capital for issuers, and (iii) lower other costs by providing data vendors with a more efficient method of collecting reference data and eliminating existing market inefficiencies. As discussed further below, the Commission believes eliminating the information asymmetry with respect to newly issued bond reference data is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act as it will “promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in” newly issued corporate bonds, and “remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market” with respect to the market in such securities. FINRA's proposal would require all FINRA member underwriters subject to Rule 6760 to report to FINRA 32 new data elements for all new issues in Corporate Debt Securities, as defined in FINRA's rules. The required data fields proposed to be reported and disseminated, together with data fields already specified in the current rule, reflect all but one of the fields that were described in the Recommendation and in the supplemental FIMSAC Letter,
• ISIN Number—needed to uniquely identify securities that are traded and settled internationally outside of North America.
• Currency—necessary for settlement purposes in order to determine the currency of the principal, interest, or premium that will be paid or received at the time of distribution or settlement of a trade.
• Issue Date/First Settlement Date—needed for settlement purposes; required in order to populate the first settlement date of the bond; needed in order to settle the bond trade between counterparties when trading new issues.
• Interest Accrual Date—necessary for settlement and valuation purposes; needed in order to start the cash flow period of the coupon.
• Day Count Description—necessary for settlement and valuation purposes; needed to calculate the purchase accrued interest and coupon of the security.
• Coupon Frequency—necessary for settlement and valuation purposes; needed to determine how often the coupon payment is made within the year and to calculate the purchase accrued interest and coupon payments.
• First Coupon Payment Date—necessary for settlement and valuation purposes; needed to determine whether the coupon will have a short or long stub on its first coupon payment.
• Regulation S Indicator -necessary for settlement purposes; needed to distinguish Regulation S securities for non-U.S. entities.
• Security Type—needed to identify the type of security being traded and its terms/features.
• Bond Type—necessary for valuation purposes; needed as the bond classification dictates the payout order in the event of an issuer default; determines the liquidation preference which specifically affects the valuation of the security.
• First Coupon Period Type—necessary for settlement and valuation purposes; denotes whether the coupon will have a short or long stub on its first coupon payment depending on the security's issue date.
• Convertible Indicator—necessary for valuation purposes; needed to understand if the bond is convertible and to allow set up with the underlying equity and conversion price/conversion ratio.
• First Conversion Date—necessary for valuation purposes; needed to determine when the bond may be converted into stock.
• First Conversion Ratio—necessary for valuation purposes; needed to determine the number of shares into which each convertible bond can be converted.
• Call Indicator—necessary for valuation purposes; needed in order to know if the bond has call feature(s); needed when the security is created and will also have an effect on its valuation.
• First Call Date—necessary for valuation purposes; needed in order to know the first call date of the security and will have an effect on bond valuation.
• Put Indicator—necessary for valuation purposes; needed in order to know if the bond has puttable feature(s); needed when the security is created and will also have an effect on its valuation.
• First Put Date—necessary for valuation purposes; needed in order to know the first put date of the security and will have an effect on bond valuation.
• Minimum Increment—necessary for settlement purposes; needed in order to understand the minimum incremental amount of bonds that an entity can buy and settle at the depository.
• Minimum Piece/Denomination—necessary for settlement purposes; needed in order to understand the minimum tradeable amount of bonds that an entity can buy and settle at the depository.
• Spread; Reference Rate & Floor—necessary for settlement and valuation purposes; needed to build a cash flow table for the security which determines the coupon for the period; directly affects the purchase accrued interest and future interest distributions; needed to calculate the purchase and interest accrued.
• Underlying Entity Ticker—necessary for valuation purposes; needed to value convertible bonds.
• Issuance Amount—addresses the size of the deal, which is a data attribute for index inclusion criteria across almost every fixed income index; would have influence on ETF, liquidity, etc.
• First Call Price & First Put Price—critical for option adjusted spread (OAS) and average life calculations; represent important fields for most clients (especially retail investors) when they gauge re-investment risk.
• Coupon Type—denotes potential complexity and predictable cash flow data.
• Rating (TRACE Grade)—important to assess risk; FINRA utilizes ratings to determine TRACE grade (Investment Grade or Non-Investment Grade) which determines dissemination volume caps.
• Perpetual Maturity Indicator—important for pre-trade compliance; yield calculations generally use first call on perpetual securities.
• PIK Indicator—important for pre-trade compliance as it indicates cash flow implications and risk for many investors.
As set forth above, FINRA has explained (and several commenters have agreed)
In addition, the Commission agrees that it is important that all required data elements for new issues in corporate debt securities be reported prior to the first transaction in the security so that market participants will be able to participate in the secondary market
For these reasons, the Commission believes that FINRA's proposal is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act as it will “promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in” newly issued corporate bonds, and “remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market” with respect to the market in such securities, consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act.
Petitioner questioned whether a single SRO would provide more accurate, complete and timely service than competing private sector providers and noted that the impact of any errors in a centralized system would be magnified.
Petitioner and another commenter stated that the proposal creates a conflict of interest for FINRA and reduces FINRA's standing as an independent regulatory force.
A number of commenters questioned the quality of FINRA's current TRACE data, and pointed to a recent study that found that approximately 20% of entries had errors.
In response to comments that private vendors should continue to provide this information rather than a single SRO,
In response to comments that there exist alternatives to the proposal that would be less costly,
In response to comments regarding alleged conflicts of interest and FINRA acting in a commercial rather than a regulatory role,
In response to comments concerning the risk of consolidating the proposed corporate bond new issue reference data with FINRA and the timeliness and accuracy of current TRACE data,
The Commission believes that FINRA is an appropriate entity to operate a centralized database for newly issued corporate bond reference data because of its status as a regulated SRO and its
The Commission believes that FINRA's status as an SRO will help ensure that it operates the New Issue Reference Data Service in a manner that will address the current information asymmetry in reference data availability on the first day of secondary market trading. Importantly, Section 15A of the Act will require FINRA to provide the New Issue Reference Data Service to market participants in a manner that is not unfairly discriminatory and on terms that are equitable and reasonable.
In addition to being subject to a comprehensive regulatory regime, FINRA has extensive experience with collecting data from its members and disseminating such data to the public. For example, TRACE, which FINRA has operated since 2002, provides information to investors and other market participants about secondary market trades in corporate bonds and other debt securities that it collects from its member firms. Currently, TRACE disseminates information to the marketplace about corporate bond trades, including trade price and size, immediately upon receipt.
Some commenters have expressed concerns that the New Issue Reference Data Service will harm corporate bond reference data quality and resilience, noting that (1) it would create a single point of failure, (2) FINRA would not be incentivized to maintain high quality data, and (3) current error rates in TRACE is evidence that FINRA's reference database will not be reliable.
The Commission also believes that FINRA will be incented to build and maintain a high quality New Issue Reference Data Service. As discussed previously, it is possible that the current business processes for new issue reference data distribution remain, which would impose competitive pressures on FINRA to provide high quality new issue reference data. If FINRA does become the sole source of new issue reference data, however, the Commission believes that FINRA will build and maintain a high quality New Issue Reference Data Service, mitigating concerns about data quality and resilience, because of (i) FINRA's experience with the establishment and maintenance of databases such as TRACE and OATS, (ii) its status and regulatory obligations as a regulated SRO, and (iii) the Commission's oversight of FINRA, including our inspection and examination functions.
Finally, the Commission is not persuaded that commenters' concerns about error rates in TRACE data call into question the ability of FINRA to build and maintain a reliable reference database. As discussed above, commenters have expressed concerns about FINRA's proposed reference database, arguing that “reconciliation differences” show that FINRA's current collection of bond data contains a high incidence of errors.
Moreover, the Commission does not believe that the disputed comments concerning existing TRACE error rates call into question the ability of FINRA to build and maintain a reliable reference database for the following additional reasons.
Commenters expressed concerns about how FINRA's proposal might impact the underwriters that will be required to provide FINRA with new reference data elements for newly issued corporate bonds. One commenter argued that the proposal would increase regulatory and liability burdens for
On the other hand, FIMSAC stated that it heard from underwriters that it would be relatively easy for them to report the new issue reference data to FINRA given their current established reporting mechanisms to TRACE and that underwriters could thereby avoid the duplicative effort involved in sending the same data multiple times to various reference data providers.
In its proposal, FINRA stated that “[b]ased on conversations with underwriters, FINRA understands that underwriters do not anticipate incurring significant costs for reporting under this proposal.”
The Commission believes that any burdens imposed on underwriters by the proposal, including smaller underwriters, would be limited because of such underwriters' existing data collection and reporting practices with respect to the information FINRA proposes to be reported.
Second, the Commission believes that underwriters today are already collecting the additional information required under the 32 data elements in the proposal, and are already reporting such information to at least one private vendor on the first day a bond trades, given the need for this information by investors in the newly issued bond's primary offering.
The Commission also notes that underwriters may also be able to efficiently leverage the services of third-party vendors to comply with FINRA's new reporting requirements, as one commenter suggested.
Finally, the proposal would require uniform pre-first trade reporting to FINRA. Currently, for information reported under Rule 6760 for trade reporting purposes, the rule generally requires pre-first trade reporting but allows some information to be reported within 15 minutes of the first-trade.
Several commenters argued that the proposal fails to adequately explain why the rule's burden on competition is necessary or appropriate consistent with Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act.
Petitioner stated that the proposal “would expand a key regulator's commercial role into new lines of heretofore competitive private business” and stressed “the likely chilling effect that this would have on investment and innovation.”
In contrast, commenters asserted that because of the limited set of data proposed to be captured by FINRA, the proposal would not supplant private sector market data providers.
In response, FINRA reiterated that the proposed data service is not designed to affect the opportunity for private third party vendors to compete and is rather intended to promote competition among new reference data providers by, among other things, lowering barriers to entry and allowing competition on other dimensions, such as additional fields, updates to existing data based on subsequent events related to the security, presentation, ease of access, and integration with other data sets and systems deemed valuable by market participants.
FINRA noted that several commenters responding to the proposal, including those that operate alongside Petitioner in both the markets for reference data and trading services, agreed that the proposal would not displace reference data providers or chill private market investments and would instead enhance competition among market participants, level the playing field, and reduce overall costs.
FINRA also stated that a key indicator of enhanced competition is the ability to reduce prices,
The Commission believes that FINRA's proposal is designed to address an information asymmetry in the market for newly issued corporate bond reference data. Specifically, there is a lack of broadly available and accessible new issue reference data on the first day of secondary market trading that impedes the efficiency and competition in the current marketplace. The Commission believes that FINRA's proposal will improve competition among market participants, including investors, data vendors, and trading platforms, by providing all market participants with the ability to access the same investment products to meet their own business and investment needs or those of their customers at the time a bond becomes available in the secondary market. The Commission believes that the burden on competition imposed on private data vendors by the proposal should be minimal and is necessary or appropriate to further the purposes of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, namely to promote just and equitable principles of trade and foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in, newly issued corporate bonds.
First, as discussed above, the impact of FINRA's proposal on the manner in which underwriters currently distribute data or how other data vendors conduct business is uncertain. It is possible, for example, that FINRA's proposal could have a positive impact on competition by lowering barriers to entry among data providers and enabling them to compete on a more level playing field.
If market participants do in fact change their current practices and report new issue reference data to FINRA only,
The Commission concludes that the limited set of data proposed to be reported and disseminated to allow for the identification, valuation and settlement of new issue corporate bonds is unlikely to supplant the demand for
For these reasons, the Commission believes that the potential benefits of the proposal discussed above, including furtherance of the purposes of Section 15A(b)(6), justify the minimal competitive burden on reference data vendors that may result from this proposal. The Commission thus finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act, and does not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
As discussed above, in Amendment No. 2, FINRA withdrew the proposed subscription fees for receipt of corporate new issue reference data from the proposal and stated that it would submit a separate filing to establish fees related to the new issue reference data service at a future date and will implement the service after those fees become effective.
In addition, these commenters stated that the proposed fees form a critical part of FINRA's proposed newly issued bond-reference data service and that the Commission and the public cannot assess whether the benefits of the proposal outweigh the costs and competitive burdens without knowing the fees that FINRA would charge for the service.
Petitioner further stated that the Commission erred in the Approval Order by not making a finding under Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act that the proposal provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system which FINRA operates or controls.
In response, FINRA stated that it did not withdraw the fees from the current proposal to avoid subjecting the fees to further public comment, but rather so it could further evaluate an appropriate fee structure for the data service.
FINRA stated that it has committed to pricing the data service as a utility, using a cost-based formula, meaning that it will tie the subscription price of the data service to FINRA's costs and that FINRA will allow all market participants to subscribe to the data service on reasonable, disclosed terms, as required of SROs.
FINRA stated that any new fees would be filed with the Commission in advance of the implementation of the newly issued corporate bond new issue reference data service and would be subject to applicable Commission rule filing requirements under the Act.
A number of commenters expressed concerns about the lack of information regarding fees for the New Issue Reference Data Service, including (a) the appropriateness of separating the fees into a separate immediately effective filing; (b) the ability of the Commission to assess the proposal's consistency with the Act without knowing either the proposed fees for the service or the potential costs to FINRA for building the service; and (c) the application of Section 15A(b)(5) to the proposal. The Commission addresses each of these issues below.
The Commission disagrees that separating the fee proposal into a subsequent filing would allow FINRA to avoid regulatory and public scrutiny of the proposed fees.
A proposed fee filing by a national securities association such as FINRA must also address all relevant statutory requirements, including Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act which requires that “[t]he rules of the association provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the association operates or controls;” Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, which requires, in part, that the rules of an association are “not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers;” and Section 15A(b)(9)of the Act, which requires, in part, that the rules of an association “not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of this title.” Regardless of whether a fee proposed by FINRA is effective upon filing with the Commission, the Commission assesses whether or not the fee proposal is consistent with the Act.
Finally, while the Commission outlined various concerns relating to effective-upon-filing fee changes for NMS plans under Rule 608(b) in the Proposed Regulation NMS Fee Amendment, we do not believe those concerns call into question our approach here. Fee filings in this context are governed by Section 19 of the Act rather than Rule 608. More importantly, as stated above, the Commission assesses whether or not any fee proposal filed under Section 19 of the Act is consistent with the Act. If the Commission determines that a fee filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) merits further review, which may be informed by the required notice and comment process, the Commission may temporarily suspend it and issue an order instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposal.
The Commission further disagrees that it cannot adequately assess the proposal's consistency with the Act and its economic effects without knowing the fees that FINRA will charge for the proposed reference data service or the costs to build the service. The Commission has evaluated the economic effects, including the qualitative costs and benefits, of the proposal based on the record before it and has concluded that there is a lack of broadly available and accessible new issue reference data on the first day of secondary market trading that impedes the efficiency and competition in the current marketplace, and that FINRA's proposal would address this information asymmetry to the benefit of the market and market participants.
The Commission disagrees with one commenter's argument that the Commission is required to make a finding under Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act that the current proposal “provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the association operates or controls.” The plain language of the Act necessitates that the proposal involve a due, fee or other charge in order to make such a finding concerning Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 1308, Supervision of Accounts, to: (1) Remove obsolete rule text; and (2) adopt temporary rules to extend the time by
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1308, Supervision of Accounts, to: (1) Remove obsolete rule text; and (2) adopt temporary rules to extend the time by which Members must complete their branch office inspections for the calendar year 2020 and to provide temporary remote inspection relief for their office inspections for calendar years 2020 and 2021.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1308 by removing obsolete rule text that is the first sentence prior to subparagraph (a). The first sentence of Exchange Rule 1308 currently provides as follows: “The deadline to submit the annual supervision-related reports pursuant paragraphs (g) and (h) will be extended from June 30, 2020 to July 31, 2020.”
In light of the operational challenges that Members are facing due to the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (“COVID-19”), the Exchange proposes to extend the time by which Members must complete their calendar year 2020 inspection obligations under Exchange Rule 1308(d) (Annual Branch Office Inspections) to March 31, 2021,
The Exchange has observed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on its Members', investors, and the industry generally and recognizes that Members are experiencing operational challenges with much of their personnel working from home due to stay-at-home orders, restrictions on businesses and social activity imposed in various states, and adherence to other social distancing guidelines consistent with the recommendations of public health officials.
Exchange Rules require Members to conduct branch
As a result of the compelling health and welfare concerns stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, Members are facing potentially significant disruptions to their normal business operations that include staff absenteeism, the increased use of remote offices or telework arrangements, travel or transportation limitations, and technology interruptions or slowdowns. Pandemic-related operational changes have made it impracticable for Members to conduct the on-site inspections pursuant to Exchange Rule 1308(d) at many or most locations for calendar year 2020 because this compliance
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt temporary Rule 1308(d)(4), to provide that each Member obligated to complete an annual branch office inspection pursuant to Exchange Rule 1308(d) in calendar year 2020 will be deemed to have satisfied such obligation if the applicable inspection is completed on or before March 31, 2021. The Exchange believes that this proposed temporary extension of time is tailored to address the needs and constraints on a Member's operations during the COVID-19 pandemic, without significantly compromising critical investor protection, as potential risks that may arise from providing firms additional time to comply with their inspection obligations due in calendar year 2020 are mitigated by their ongoing supervisory obligations, off-site monitoring, and the temporary nature of the extension. The proposed extension will provide Members with an opportunity to better manage the operational challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and the resources needed to fulfill these supervisory obligations during the pandemic.
In addition to this, the Exchange proposes to extend temporary remote inspection relief for calendar year 2020 and 2021. In particular, the Exchange proposes to adopt temporary Exchange Rule 1308(d)(5), which provides that each Member obligated to conduct an inspection of a branch office or non-branch location in calendar year 2020 and calendar year 2021 pursuant to Exchange Rule 1308(d), as applicable, may, subject to the requirements of Rule 1308(d)(5), satisfy such obligation by conducting the applicable inspection remotely, without an on-site visit to the office or location. In accordance with Exchange Rule 1308(d)(4), inspections for calendar year 2020 must be completed on or before March 31, 2021. Inspections for calendar year 2021 must be completed on or before December 31, 2021. Notwithstanding proposed Exchange Rule 1308(d)(5), a Member remains subject to the other requirements of Exchange Rule 1308(d).
The proposed rule change also adopts written supervisory procedures for remote inspections in proposed Exchange Rule 1308(d)(5)(i), which provides that, consistent with a Member's obligations under Rule 1308(d), a Member that elects to conduct each of its calendar year 2020 or calendar year 2021 branch office inspections remotely must amend or supplement its written supervisory procedures to provide for remote inspections that are reasonably designed to assist in detecting and preventing violations of and achieving compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable Exchange Rules. Reasonably designed procedures for conducting remote inspections of offices or locations should include, among other things: (i) A description of the methodology, including technologies permitted by the branch office, that may be used to conduct remote inspections; and (ii) the use of other risk-based systems employed generally by the branch office to identify and prioritize for review those areas that pose the greatest risk of potential violations of applicable securities laws and regulations, and of applicable Exchange Rules. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with a Member's existing supervisory obligations to establish and maintain written supervisory procedures for branch office reviews and review of non-branch offices and locations.
Proposed temporary Rule 1308(d)(5)(ii) provides that the requirement to conduct inspections of offices and locations is one part of a Member's overall obligation to have an effective supervisory system and, therefore, a Member must continue with its ongoing review of the activities and functions occurring at all offices and locations, whether or not the Member conducts inspections remotely. A Member's use of a remote inspection of an office or location will be held to the same standards for review as set forth under Exchange Rule 1308(d). Where a Member's remote inspection of an office or location identifies any indicators of irregularities or misconduct (
Finally, proposed temporary Exchange Rule 1308(d)(5)(iii) provides for a documentation requirement and specifically provides that a Member must maintain and preserve a centralized record for each of calendar year 2020 and calendar year 2021 that separately identifies: (1) All offices or locations that had inspections that were conducted remotely; and (2) any offices or locations for which the Member determined to impose additional supervisory procedures or more frequent monitoring, as provided in Exchange Rule 1308(d)(5). A Member's documentation of the results of a remote inspection for an office or location must identify any additional supervisory procedures or more frequent monitoring for that office or location that were imposed as a result of the remote inspection. The Exchange believes that this documentation requirement would help readily distinguish the offices and locations that underwent remote inspections and their attendant supervisory procedures, and their more frequent monitoring, as applicable.
As noted above, even in the current environment, Members have an ongoing obligation to establish and maintain a system to supervise the activities of their associated persons that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable Exchange Rules. The proposed temporary additions of Exchange Rule 1308(d)(4) and (d)(5) are not intended to lessen the supervisory obligations prescribed under the Exchange Rules. The Exchange believes that the proposed temporary rule changes, which address the needs and constraints on a Member's operations during the COVID-19 pandemic by extending the time to conduct inspections for calendar year 2020 and permitting firms to remotely inspect, subject to specified requirements described above, their offices and locations for calendar years 2020 and 2021, would provide Members a way to comply with Exchange Rule 1308(d) that would not materially diminish, and is reasonably designed to achieve, the investor protection objectives of the inspection requirements under these unique circumstances. The Exchange notes that potential risks that may arise from providing Members extended time to conduct their 2020 inspections and the option to conduct their inspections remotely are mitigated by their use of technology to meet their supervisory obligations on an ongoing basis, the unique circumstances under which they are operating, and the temporary nature of the proposed rules, which would expire on March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2021, respectively.
The Exchange notes that the proposed temporary rules are substantively identical to the temporary inspection extension and remote relief rules recently filed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and the Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe”).
The Exchange notes that MIAX Chapter XIII is incorporated by reference into the rulebooks of the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX PEARL, LLC (“PEARL”) and MIAX Emerald, LLC (“Emerald”). As such, the amendments to MIAX Chapter XIII proposed herein will also apply to MIAX PEARL and MIAX Emerald Chapters XIII.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with 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 that the proposed change to remove obsolete text in Exchange Rule 1308 is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promotes just and equitable principles of trade, fosters cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitates transactions in securities, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
In particular, the Exchange believes that, in light of the impact of COVID-19 on the performance of on-site office and location inspections pursuant to Exchange Rule 1308(d), the proposed temporary rule changes are intended to provide Members additional time to comply with their Exchange Rule 1308(d) inspection obligations due in calendar year 2020 and a temporary regulatory option to conduct inspections of offices and locations remotely for calendar years 2020 and 2021. The proposed temporary rule changes do not relieve firms from meeting their existing regulatory obligations to establish and maintain a supervisory system that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable Exchange Rules, which directly serve investor protection. In a time when faced with unique challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Exchange believes that the proposed temporary rule changes provide appropriately tailored relief that will afford Members the ability to observe the recommendations of public health officials to provide for the health and safety of their personnel, while continuing to serve and promote the protection of investors and the public interest.
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 does not believe the proposed rule change to delete obsolete text will impose any burden on intra-market and inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather are corrective, non-substantive changes that are concerned solely with the removal of rule text that is no longer effective.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed temporary rule changes to Exchange Rule 1308(d) will impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act, because the extension for inspections and the remote inspection relief will apply equally to all Members required to conduct office and location inspections in calendar year 2020 and 2021. The Exchange further does not believe that the proposed temporary rule changes will impose any burden on inter-market competition because it relates only to the extension of time for 2020 inspections and the manner in which inspections for 2020 and 2021 may be conducted. Additionally, and as stated above, FINRA and Cboe have recently submitted filings to adopt substantively identical temporary inspection relief rules for their members and trading permit holders.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2021-01 and should be submitted on or before February 16, 2021.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from the Utah Inland Port Authority (WB21-07—1/13/21) for permission to use select data from the Board's 2019 Masked Carload Waybill Sample. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Board's website under docket no. WB21-07.
The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
Under part 235 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that on January 8, 2021, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2021-0007.
Specifically, NS requests permission to discontinue an automatic block signal (ABS) system on the W line, milepost (MP) W54.8, Inman, to MP W65.6, Spartanburg, on the Coastal Division. This includes 5 automatic signals. The main track between MP W54.8 and MP W65.6 will be converted to NS Rule 171 operation.
NS states the reason for the proposed discontinuance is that operations no longer require ABS.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by March 11, 2021 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under part 235 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that on January 7, 2021, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2021-0009.
Specifically, NS requests permission to discontinue a traffic control system (TCS) on the T and TC lines, milepost (MP) 0.0T to MP 40.0T and MP 40.0TC to MP 87.0TC, from Andover to Bulls Gap on the Blue Ridge Division. This includes control points (CP) at Big Stone, Jasper, Tito, Glenita, Watkins, Boone, Smith, Yuma, Click, Lamb, Church Hill, Surgoinsville, Hawkins, Burem, Hogan, McCloud, Summit, Moore, Ward, Haun, and 18 automatic signal locations. The main track between MP 0.0T and MP 40.0T and MP 40.0TC and MP 87.0TC will be converted to NS Rule 171 operation. Two operable approach signals will be installed at MP 43.8TC and MP 48.3TC. The signaled sidings within the application area will be made non-controlled, other than main track.
NS states the reason for the proposed discontinuance is that operations no longer require TCS.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be
•
•
•
•
Communications received by March 11, 2021 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 235 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that on January 5, 2021, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2021-0002.
Specifically, NS requests permission to discontinue a traffic control system (TCS) on the NA West End line, milepost (MP) 801, Birmingham, Alabama, to MP 840 and MP NA 95, control point (CP) Parish, to MP NA 5, CP Lee, on the Alabama Division. This includes CPs at Brookside, Blossburg, Locust, Bryan, Standard, Parish, Gamble, Burton, Nauvoo, Ash, Lynn, Bankhead, Yankee, Delmar, Haleyville, Philco, Franklin, Hyde, and Littleville, and 38 automatic signals. The main track from MP NA 801 to MP 840 and MP NA5 to MP NA95 will be converted to NS Rule 171 operation. All signaled sidings within the application limits will be made non-controlled, other than main track.
NS states the reason for the proposed discontinuance is that operations no longer require TCS.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by March 11, 2021 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 235 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that on January 6, 2021, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2021-0004.
Specifically, NS requests permission to discontinue a traffic control system (TCS) on the S line, from milepost (MP) S146.0, control point (CP) Craggy, at Murphy Junction, to MP S228, CP New Line, at Morristown, on the Gulf Division. This includes CPs at Craggy, Volga, Ivy, Nocona, Walnut, Hot Springs, French, Del Rio, Big Creek, Bridgeport, Huff, Leadvale, Lilac, and Douglas, and 20 automatic signals. The main track between S146 and S228 will be converted to NS Rule 171 operation. An automatic signal at MP S226.5 will be converted to an operable approach signal. The signaled sidings within the application limits will be made non-controlled, other than main track.
NS states the reason for the proposed discontinuance is that operations no longer require TCS.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by March 11, 2021 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under part 235 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that on January 5, 2021, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2021-0003.
Specifically, NS requests permission to discontinue an automatic block signal (ABS) and traffic control system (TCS) on the S line from milepost (MP) S25.7, Statesville, North Carolina, to MP S145.0, control point (CP) Craggy, on the Coastal Division. This includes CPs at Biltmore, Mitchell, Russell, and Murphy Junction slide fences, and 52 automatic signals. The main track between S25.7 and S145.0 will be converted to NS Rule 171 operation. An automatic signal at MP S26.2 will be converted to an operable approach signal. The signaled sidings within the application limits will be made non-controlled, other than main track.
NS states the reason for the proposed discontinuance is that operations no longer require ABS or TCS.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by March 11, 2021 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Denial of petition.
On July 10, 2017, Takata Corporation (“Takata”) filed a defect information report (“DIR”) in which it determined that a safety-related defect
For further information about this decision, contact Stephen Hench, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W41-229, Washington, DC 20590, (Tel. 202.366.2262).
For general information about NHTSA's investigation into Takata air bag inflator ruptures and the related recalls, visit
The Takata air bag inflator recalls (“Takata recalls”) are the largest and most complex vehicle recalls in U.S. history. These recalls currently involve 19 vehicle manufacturers and approximately 67 million Takata air bag inflators in tens of millions of vehicles in the United States alone. The recalls are due to a design defect, whereby the propellant used in Takata's air bag inflators degrades after long-term exposure to high humidity and temperature cycling. During air bag deployment, this propellant degradation can cause the inflator to over-pressurize, causing sharp metal fragments (like shrapnel) to penetrate the air bag and enter the vehicle compartment. To date, these rupturing Takata inflators have resulted in the deaths of 18 people across the United States
In May 2015, NHTSA issued, and Takata agreed to, a Consent Order,
The Coordinated Remedy Order, which established the Coordinated Remedy, is available at:
Under the Coordinated Remedy, vehicles are prioritized for repair parts based on various factors relevant to the safety risk—primarily on vehicle model year (MY), as a proxy for inflator age, and geographic region. In the early stages of the Takata inflator recalls, affected vehicles were categorized as belonging to one of two regions: The High Absolute Humidity (“HAH”) region (largely inclusive of Gulf Coast states and tropical island states and territories), or the non-HAH region (inclusive of the remaining states and the District of Columbia). On May 4, 2016, NHTSA issued, and Takata agreed to, an amendment to the November 3, 2015 Consent Order (“ACO”), wherein these geographic regions were refined based on improved understanding of the risk, and were then categorized as Zones A, B, and C. Zone A encompasses the higher risk HAH region as well as certain other states,
While the Takata recalls to date have been limited almost entirely to Takata PSAN inflators that do not contain a desiccant (a drying agent)—
In February 2016, NHTSA requested Ford's assistance in evaluating Takata calcium-sulfate desiccated PSDI-5 driver-side air bag inflators, to which Ford agreed. In June 2016, Ford and Takata began a field-recovery program to evaluate Takata calcium-sulfate desiccated PSDI-5 driver-side air bag inflators that were original equipment in
Takata analyzed 423 such inflators from the Ford program—as well as 895 such inflators from the Nissan program.
Takata's DIR filing triggered Ford's obligation to file a DIR for its affected vehicles.
In a Notice published in the
The fourth commenter, the Center for Auto Safety (“CAS”), emphasized the dangers that Takata air bag inflators can pose, including the PSDI-5 inflators at issue in Ford's Petition. CAS also stated a concern that granting Ford's Petition “would effectively serve as a decision that these inflators are exempt from future recall should additional PSAN testing prove a danger.”
On October 26, 2018, at an in-person meeting with NHTSA, Ford shared additional information in support of its Petition, including internal analyses, test methodologies, and results of tests performed by Ford and outside parties on behalf of Ford or at Ford's request.
The written materials Ford submitted do not explicitly identify one of these third parties, which his hereinafter referred to as “Third Party.”
Ford's Petition involves approximately 3.04 million light
• Ford Ranger (MY 2007-2011) (build dates January 9, 2006 through December 16, 2011);
• Ford Fusion (MY 2006-2012) (build dates March 15, 2005 through July 29, 2012);
• Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ (MY 2006-2012) (build dates March 15, 2005 through July 29, 2012);
• Mercury Milan (MY 2006-2011) (build dates March 15, 2005 through June 4, 2011);
• Ford Edge (MY 2007-2010) (build dates June 15, 2006 through July 12, 2010); and
• Lincoln MKX (MY 2007-2010) (build dates June 15, 2006 through July 12, 2010).
The defect is present in Takata calcium-sulfate desiccated PSDI-5 driver-side air bag inflators.
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the “Safety Act”), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, defines “motor vehicle safety” as “the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.”
“Inconsequential” is not defined either in the statute or in NHTSA's regulations, and so must be interpreted based on its “ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.”
The House Conference Report indicates that the Department of Transportation planned to define “inconsequentiality” through a regulation; however, it did not do so.
The statutory context is also relevant to the meaning of “inconsequential.”
On application of a manufacturer, the Secretary shall exempt the manufacturer from this section if the Secretary decides a defect or noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The Secretary may take action under this subsection only after notice in the
As described above, the statute defines “motor vehicle safety” to mean “the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents . . . and
The statute explicitly allows a manufacturer to seek an exemption from carrying out a recall on the basis that either a defect or a noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Given this statutory context, a manufacturer bears a heavy burden in petitioning NHTSA to determine that a defect related to motor vehicle safety (which necessarily involves an unreasonable risk of an accident, or death or injury in an accident) is nevertheless inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. In accordance with the plain meaning of “inconsequential,” the manufacturer must show that a risk posed by a defect is not important or is capable of being ignored. This appropriately describes the actual consequence of granting a petition as well. The manufacturer would be relieved of its statutory obligations to notify vehicle owners and to remedy the defect, and effectively to ignore the defect as unimportant from a safety perspective. Accordingly, the threshold of evidence necessary for a manufacturer to carry its burden of persuasion that a defect is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety is difficult to satisfy. This is particularly true where the defect involves a potential failure of safety-critical equipment, as is the case here.
The Agency necessarily determines whether a defect or noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based on the specific facts before it. The scarcity of defect-related inconsequentiality petitions over the course of the Agency's history reflects the heavy burden of persuasion, as well as the general understanding among regulated entities that the grant of such relief would be quite rare. The Agency has recognized this explicitly in the past. For example, in 2002, NHTSA stated that “[a]lthough NHTSA's empowering statute alludes to the possibility of an inconsequentiality determination with regard to a defect, the granting of such a petition would be highly unusual.”
Of the four known occasions in which the Agency has previously considered petitions contending that a defect is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, the Agency has granted only one of the petitions, nearly three decades ago, in a vastly different set of circumstances.
On the other hand, NHTSA denied another petition concerning a vehicle's weight label where there was a potential safety impact. NHTSA denied that petition from National Coach Corporation on the basis that the rear gross axle weight rating (RGAWR) for its buses was too low and could lead to overloading of the rear axle if the buses were fully loaded with passengers.
NHTSA also denied a petition asserting that a defect was inconsequential to motor vehicle safety where the defect involved premature corrosion of critical structure components (the vehicle's undercarriage), which could result in a crash or loss of vehicle control.
Most recently, the Agency denied a petition asserting that a defect in non-desiccated Takata PSAN air bag inflators
Agency practice over several decades therefore shows that inconsequentiality petitions are rarely filed in the defect context, and virtually never granted. Nonetheless, in light of the importance of the issues here, and the fact that Ford's defect notification was filed in response to the notification provided by Ford's supplier, the Agency also considered the potential usefulness of the Agency's precedent on noncompliance. The same legal standard—“inconsequential to motor vehicle safety”—applies to both defects and noncompliances.
In the noncompliance context, in some instances, NHTSA has determined that a manufacturer met its burden of demonstrating that a noncompliance was inconsequential to safety. For example, labels intended to provide safety advice to an occupant that may have a misspelled word, or that may be printed in the wrong format or the wrong type size, have been deemed inconsequential where they should not cause any misunderstanding, especially where other sources of correct information are available.
However, the burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a
An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality based upon NHTSA's prior decisions on noncompliance issues was the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against which the recall would otherwise protect.
Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment are affected have also not justified granting an inconsequentiality petition.
Ford advances several arguments in support of its Petition. In sum, Ford asserts that there is a difference in expected performance between desiccated and non-desiccated Takata PSAN inflators; that there are design differences between its covered inflators and another variant of the same type; that although there are signs of aging in field returns, there is no indication of propellant degradation that could lead to rupture and no imminent safety risk; and that no ruptures of the covered inflators are expected to occur for at least over twenty-six years of cumulative exposure in the worst-case environment, for the worst-case vehicle configuration, and worst-case customer usage. Ford supports these arguments with its own analyses, results of inflator testing and analyses conducted by three outside entities, and predictive modeling.
Ford undertook its own statistical analysis of data in the Master Engineering Analysis File (“MEAF”),
The first chart is of box plots of primary-chamber pressures of covered Ford inflators by age, which Ford asserts shows there is “[n]o significant trend of primary pressure increase with inflator age.”
According to Ford, Takata analyzed 1,992 calcium-sulfate desiccated PSDI-5 driver-side air bag inflators returned from the field from Ford vehicles, which included 1,008 inflators from Ford Ranger vehicles
Ford did not much further explain the nature or results of this ballistic testing and live dissection in either its October 2018 or November 2020 Presentations. Ford does, however, further describe such analyses with respect to the approximately 423 inflators from Ford Rangers that Takata had analyzed at that point.
When Ford filed its Petition, Takata had analyzed over 1,300 of its calcium-sulfate desiccated PSDI-5 driver-side air bag inflators: The approximately 423 inflators from Ford Rangers, and the remainder from Nissan Versa vehicles.
Ford asserts that about 360 live dissections of the Ford Ranger inflators demonstrated “consistent inflator output performance”—specifically, that measurements of ignition-tablet discoloration, “generate” density,
Ford contends in its Petition that its conclusions are further supported by forty-seven ballistic deployment tests that showed no inflator exceeding the production primary-chamber pressure performance specifications.
In its Petition, Ford contends that “[t]here are significant design differences” in the covered Ford inflators when compared to the covered Nissan inflators, and that such differences may explain differences observed between the inflator variants in generate properties and during testing.
Northrop Grumman (“NG”) analyzed the covered Ford inflators, results of which were presented to the Agency subsequent to Ford's filing of its Petition. According to Ford, NG's assessment of field-return parts and modeling “identified expected signs of aging but no indication of degradation that could lead to rupture,” and the assessment “identified clear and significant differences between desiccated and non-desiccated inflators of similar age and design.”
Specifically, NG undertook 58 dissections, 138 tank tests, MEAF analysis, design comparisons, CT scans, and ballistic modeling. The inflators subject to dissection and tank tests included inflators from Ford Rangers (2006-2007, prefix ZN) and Fusions (2006-2008, prefix ZQ) in South Florida; Edges (2006-2008, prefix ZQ) in South Florida and Georgia; Rangers (2006-2007, prefix ZN) in Arizona, Rangers in Michigan (2006-2008, prefix ZN); and virgin inflators (prefixes ZN and ZQ).
NG also completed probability-of-failure projections for the covered Ford inflators under its inflator aging model, on which Ford updated the Agency in November 2020.
According to Ford, NG performed various assessments related to live dissections of inflators:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NG developed ballistic models “to investigate the observed performance behavior of Ford PSDI-5 ZN and ZQ inflators and to evaluate the potential sensitivity of the inflators to certain design deviations.”
NG analyzed MEAF data up to February 2018 to determine whether covered Ford inflators had energetic deployment (“ED”) rates were dependent on platform, inflator age, climate zone, or other factors.
In its November 2020 Presentation to the Agency, Ford cites NG's PSAN Inflator Test Program and Predictive Aging Model Final Report from October 2019 (“NG Model”),
Ford then asserts that the earliest Fusion/Milan/MKZ vehicles equipped with the covered Ford inflators were built in 2005, and that if those vehicles perform as T3 vehicles, the earliest calendar year for a 1 in 10,000 probability of failure is 2031 for a 1% usage vehicle.
Ford builds on these assertions by stating that “for a rupture to occur the vehicle must be in service and experience a crash resulting in airbag deployment,” and that based on vehicle attrition and crash statistics, Ford does not project a field event at twenty-six years of service.
Ford therefore states that the earliest a Ford vehicle in a Miami-type environment may reach a .01% probability of failure is over a decade in the future for a 1%-usage T3 vehicle and that, in other words, “the predictive model suggests that no inflator ruptures are expected to occur for at least 26 years of cumulative exposure in the worst case environment, worst case vehicle configuration, and worst case customer usage” (
Ford also makes several other observations, including that:
• “[s]tudying parts prior to approximately 16-18 years in service would not identify meaningful inflator aging information” (
• the ITC, in coordination with NG, is conducting a surveillance program for desiccated Takata PSAN inflators, and data gathered from that program can validate the NG models;
• “[w]ith newer inflators that have not yet shown signs of aging, there is a significant opportunity for improving the fidelity and accuracy of the model with enhanced anchoring data”; and
• there is time for a separate surveillance program for the covered Ford inflators “well before any potential risk is projected” after the results of NG's surveillance program that are expected in 2021.
Ford concludes that it “believes that the current data indicates that the subject inflators do not present an unreasonable risk to safety and that it supports granting the petition.”
According to Ford, an additional Third Party found that no pressure excursions were detected in the covered Ford inflators analyzed to date.
Ford, through its Petition and supporting analysis, seeks to show that the covered Ford inflators are not at risk of rupture such that the defect is inconsequential to safety. First, as noted above, when taking into consideration the Agency's noncompliance precedent, an important factor is also the severity of the consequence of the defect were it to occur—
And second, as a general matter, at various points, Ford's Petition implicitly appears to adopt the covered Nissan inflators as a standard for inconsequentiality. However, differentiating the covered Ford inflators from the covered Nissan inflators,
Relatedly, Ford's argument regarding “design differences” between the covered Ford and covered Nissan inflators appears to be more of an identification of areas for further study or potential explanation—not a standalone argument in support of an inconsequentiality determination. Ford identifies design differences “that
In addition to these issues, signs of aging were observed in the covered Ford inflators; the sample sizes used for the analyses were limited; and there are shortcomings regarding various analyses that undermine their conclusions—including some information that was missing or unclear. Ford's probability-of-failure projections are also unpersuasive—and notably belied by the limited evidence available from ballistic testing and analysis on real-world field returns of the covered Ford inflators. These additional issues are discussed below.
Ford admits that signs of aging were observed in the covered Ford inflators. While Ford indirectly dismisses this is as a non-issue—concluding that there is no degradation “that would signal either an imminent or developing risk to safety”—aging leads to degradation, which leads to risk of inflator rupture. Further, the 2004 propellant that is present in the covered Ford inflators degrades until, at some point, it no longer burns normally, but in an accelerated and unpredictable manner that can cause an inflator rupture. “The purpose of the Safety Act . . . is to prevent serious injuries stemming from established defects before they occur.”
The Agency finds shortcomings in the sample sizes utilized in the analyses. Ford's total field-return sample was, across the Takata, NG, and the additional Third Party analyses, less than 3,000 inflators for an affected population of over 3 million vehicles. Ford presented analysis from Takata of fewer than 2,000 inflators, while NG analyzed only 196, and the additional Third Party analyzed just over 100. In total, Ford cites to 1,460 ballistic tests, which is approximately .05% of the total population subject to Ford's Petition. By comparison, for example, that percentage of the population tested is much smaller than the percentage of inflators tested as of November 2019 in a mid-sized pick-up vehicle population equipped with non-desiccated PSAN inflators—1.81%—with one observed test rupture. Ford's own statistical analysis of the MEAF regarding Pc Primary Max Value frequency
Other shortcomings regarding various analyses presented here—including some information that was missing or unclear—further undermine the associated conclusions. These are identifiable in both Ford's Petition and in the subsequent Presentations to the Agency.
As an initial matter, Ford submitted little of the relevant underlying data, and did not fully explain the underlying methodologies and results, associated with the arguments in its 2017 Petition. More specifically, one of Ford's arguments in its 2017 Petition is that Takata's live dissections of covered Ford inflators does not show tablet-density degradation or increased inflation pressure, and therefore, Takata “did not identify a reduction in density trend” in
Ford also provides little information about the specific inflators tested and associated results with regard to density measurements—such as actual dimensions, mass, and densities, among measurements—instead largely relying on general descriptions the results.
Ford's statistical analysis of the MEAF contains several shortcomings in the first two charts—box plots of primary-chamber pressure by age of inflator, and a lognormal histogram of maximum values illustrating the frequency of maximum values of primary-chamber pressure of covered Ford inflators. In the box plots, Ford does not specify or illustrate what a “normal” or “expected” primary-chamber pressure would be. Nor did Ford provide information showing how many inflators each age group comprises—although the lack of whiskers in the box plot for inflators aged thirteen years suggests that, at least for that age group, the sample size is small. There are also outlier pressure values observed in the nine- to twelve-year age groups, which concern the Agency. And in the histogram, Ford does not distinguish among different inflator ages—which would have highlighted any trends in primary-chamber pressure maximum values based on age.
There are also several shortcomings with the second two charts—the probability curves for module ages, and probability plots comparing primary-chamber pressure maximum values of Ford modules with desiccated and non-desiccated inflators, respectively. As to the probability curves, while details were not provided by Ford, this analysis appears to assume that degradation will proceed linearly. However, researchers that have been most closely involved in analyzing Takata inflators, including NG, all seem to agree that the degradation process is, at the very least, complex, and does not follow a linear trajectory. Instead, 2004 propellant (which is contained in the covered Ford inflators) degrades until, at some point, it no longer burns normally, but in an accelerated and unpredictable manner that can cause an inflator rupture. As to the probability plots, while a comparison between desiccated and non-desiccated inflators is somewhat informative from a broad perspective, it is too general to lend much support to Ford's Petition, and as noted above, the performance of non-desiccated Takata PSAN inflators is not a sound benchmark for whether the defect in the covered Ford inflators is inconsequential to safety.
Regarding NG's analysis, as an initial matter, over a quarter of the 196 inflators analyzed were non-aged/virgin inflators and, further, degradation would not be expected in the inflators from Michigan (from which, collectively, 55 of the inflators were obtained). Ford also acknowledges aging in inflator O-rings from this analysis. In addition, there are several particular issues with NG's live dissections worth noting. Findings regarding moisture content are of limited value, and Ford did not present important information on the referenced comparator prefix ZA and YT inflators—
Ford's probability-of-failure projections are also unpersuasive. As previously described, these projections, submitted in support of Ford's Petition in November 2020, are based on the NG Model. While the projections are informative in various respects, NHTSA does not view the Model's outputs for the covered Ford inflators as fully squaring with the evidence available for those inflators from real-world field returns
Ford also noted a ZN inflator tested by NG with a chamber pressure approximately 20% higher than the average of the other inflators in tank testing. The specific measurement (and measurements of other NG tests) does not appear to have been provided to the Agency.
Data from the MEAF also may suggest the beginning stages of notable density changes in propellant tablets in the covered Ford inflators with increasing field age. Recent results from primary tablets in inflators with field ages between 12 and 14 years show four inflators with density measurements near (or below) 1.68 g/cc; according to Ford, 1.64 g/cc is the point at which the PSDI-5 inflators with 2004 tablets are susceptible to energetic disassembly.
The above results from real-world field returns signal that propellant degradation in the covered Ford inflators is occurring. While the predictive model that Ford references (and its applicable results) is informative in certain respects, the specific metrics Ford cites in support cannot be sufficiently squared with the actual testing that has been completed on real-world field returns to be persuasive for Ford's Petition.
Further, there are shortcomings particular to the metrics on which Ford relies regarding the Model. Notably, Ford contends that “there are no expected field events projected at 26 years of service.”
The relief sought here is extraordinary. Ford's Petition is quite distinct from previous petitions discussed above relating to defective labels that may (or may not) mislead the user of the vehicle to create an unsafe condition.
NHTSA has been offered no persuasive reason to think that without a recall, even if current owners are aware of the defect and instant petition, subsequent owners of vehicles equipped with covered Ford inflators would be made aware of the issue.
As discussed above, the threshold of evidence necessary to prove the inconsequentiality of a defect such as this one—involving the potential performance failure of safety-critical equipment—is very difficult to overcome.
As noted above, at various points Ford's Petition appears to focus on differentiating the covered Ford inflators from the covered Nissan inflators—not directly answering the question of whether the defect in the covered Ford inflators is, on its own merits, inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Ford similarly argued in subsequent materials that the covered
As a general matter, signs of aging were observed in the covered Ford inflators, which leads to propellant degradation, which leads to inflator rupture—and the 2004 propellant that is present in the covered Ford inflators degrades until, at some point, it no longer burns normally, but in an accelerated and unpredictable manner that can cause an inflator rupture. Perhaps most importantly, even with the limited testing evidence available, ballistic testing of field returns of the covered Ford inflators includes three inflator deployments with primary-chamber pressures between 60 and 70 MPa—coming from two ZQ inflators with a field age between 12 and 13 years (one of which exhibited a pressure of 68 MPa), and one ZN inflator with a field age between 10 and 11 years. Data from the MEAF also appears to indicate the beginning stages of density changes in propellant tablets in the covered Ford inflators with increasing field age. These results from real-world field returns signal that propellant degradation in the covered Ford inflators is occurring, and belie the probability-of-failure projections that Ford provides (which have their own additional shortcomings that lead to an understatement of the potential risk).
Given the severity of the consequence of propellant degradation in these air bag inflators—the rupture of the inflator and metal shrapnel sprayed at vehicle occupants—a finding of inconsequentiality to safety demands extraordinarily robust and persuasive evidence. What Ford presents here, while valuable and informative in certain respects, suffers from far too many shortcomings, both when the evidence is assessed individually and in its totality, to demonstrate that the defect in covered Ford inflators is not important or can otherwise be ignored as a matter of safety.
In consideration of the forgoing, NHTSA has decided Ford has not demonstrated that the defect is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Ford's Petition is hereby denied, and Ford is obligated to provide notification of, and a remedy for, the defect pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120. Within 30 days of the issuance of this decision, Ford shall submit to NHTSA a proposed schedule for the notification of vehicle owners and the launch of a remedy required to fulfill those obligations.
49 U.S.C. 30101,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); DOT.
Notice.
PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit public comments on a request for special permit received from the El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. (EPNG). The special permit request is seeking relief from compliance with certain requirements in the Federal pipeline safety regulations. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will review the comments received from this notice as part of its evaluation to grant or deny the special permit request.
Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by February 24, 2021.
Comments should reference the docket number for this specific special permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
There is a privacy statement published on
PHMSA received a special permit request from EPNG seeking a waiver from the requirements of 49 CFR 192.611(a) and (d): Change in class location: Confirmation or revision of maximum allowable operating pressure, and § 192.619(a): Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic pipelines. This special permit is being requested in lieu of pipe replacement or pressure reduction for one (1) special permit segment of 650 feet (0.123 miles) on the EPNG pipeline system. The proposed special permit segment is located in Ward County, Texas. The EPNG pipeline class location in the special permit segment has changed from a Class 2 to a Class 3 location. The EPNG pipeline special permit segment is a 30-inch diameter pipeline with an existing maximum allowable operating pressure of 944 pounds per square inch gauge. The installation of the special permit segment occurred in 2003.
The special permit request, proposed special permit with conditions, and Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the EPNG pipeline are available for review and public comment in Docket No. PHMSA-2020-0008. We invite interested persons to review and submit comments on the special permit request and DEA in the docket. Please include any comments on potential safety and environmental impacts that may result if the special permit is granted. Comments may include relevant data.
Before issuing a decision on the special permit request, PHMSA will evaluate all comments received on or before the comment closing date. Comments received after the closing date will be evaluated, if it is possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay. PHMSA will consider each relevant comment it receives in making its decision to grant or deny this special permit request.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, FinCEN invites comments on the proposed renewal, without change, of a currently approved information collection found in existing Bank Secrecy Act regulations. Specifically, the regulations permit banks to file a FinCEN Report 110, Designation of Exempt Person (“DOEP Report”), to designate eligible customers as exempt persons, such that a bank is not required to file a report with respect to any transaction in currency over $10,000 with such customers. Under the regulations, a bank, to exempt a person, must also take steps to ensure that a person meets the requirements for an exemption, document the basis for the bank's initial conclusion that a person is exempt, annually review the eligibility of certain exempt persons, document compliance with the DOEP Report requirements, and maintain a monitoring system that is reasonably designed to detect, for each account of a non-listed business or payroll customer, transactions in currency requiring a bank to file a suspicious transaction report. Although no changes are proposed to the information collection itself, this request for comments covers a future expansion of the scope of the annual hourly burden and cost estimate associated with these regulations. This request for comments is made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments are welcome, and must be received on or before March 26, 2021.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
Please submit comments by one method only. Comments will also be taken into account in FinCEN's review of existing regulations, consistent with Treasury's 2011 Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules. All comments submitted in response to this notice will become a matter of public record. Therefore, you should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available.
The FinCEN Regulatory Support Section at 1-800-767-2825 or electronically at
The legislative framework generally referred to as the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) consists of the Currency and Financial Transactions Reporting Act of 1970, as amended by the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act) (Pub. L. 107-56) and other legislation. The BSA is codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314 and 5316-5332, and notes thereto, with implementing regulations at 31 CFR Chapter X.
The BSA authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury,
The requirement for financial institutions to report certain transactions in currency has been an important component of the BSA from its inception.
Under 31 CFR 1020.315(a), a bank is not required to file a CTR with respect to any transaction in currency between exempt persons and the bank, or between an exempt person and other banks that are affiliated with the bank.
31 CFR 1020.315(b) sets out that an exempt person is: (1) A bank, to the extent of such bank's domestic operations; (2) a department or agency of the United States, of any State, or of any political subdivision of any State; (3) any entity established under the laws of the United States, any State, or any political subdivision of any State, or under an interstate compact, that exercises governmental authority on behalf of the United States, any such State, or any such political subdivision; (4) any entity, other than a bank, whose common stock or analogous equity interests are listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the American Exchange, or the NASDAQ Stock Market (a “listed entity”), provided that, if the listed entity is a financial institution other than a bank, it is an exempt person only to the extent of its domestic operations; (5) any subsidiary, other than a bank, of a listed entity mentioned in the previous item (4) that is organized under the laws of the United Sates or of any State, provided that the listed entity owns at least 51 percent of the equity interest of the subsidiary, and subject to the qualification that if the subsidiary is a financial institution other than a bank, it is an exempt person only to the extent of its domestic operations; (6) any other commercial enterprise, with certain exceptions, that maintains a transaction account at the bank for at least two months, frequently engages in transactions with the bank in currency in excess of $10,000, and is incorporated or organized under the laws of, or is registered as and eligible to do business within, the United States or a State (a “non-listed business”), but only to the extent of the non-listed business customers' domestic operations and only with respect to transactions conducted through the non-listed business customer's exemptible accounts; or (7) any other person, with certain exceptions, that maintains a transaction account at the bank for at least two months, operates a firm that frequently withdraws more than $10,000 in order to pay its U.S. employees in currency, and is incorporated or organized under the laws of, or is registered as and eligible to do business within, the United States or a State (a “payroll customer”), but solely with respect to withdrawals for payroll purposes from existing exemptible accounts.
31 CFR 1020.315(c)(1) requires a bank to designate an exempt person by filing the DOEP Report
31 CFR 1020.315(d) requires a bank to review at least once annually the continued eligibility of an exempt person that is a (1) listed entity, (2) subsidiary of a listed entity, (3) non-listed business customer, or (4) payroll customer. As part of the annual review, a bank must also review the application to each existing account of a non-listed business or payroll customer of the monitoring system that 31 CFR 1020.315(h)(2) requires the bank to maintain (related to suspicious activity monitoring).
Under 31 CFR 1020.315(e), a bank must take steps to assure itself that an exempt person meets the definition of that term (see 31 CFR 1020.315(b), summarized above), document the basis for its conclusion, and document its compliance with the terms of the exemption, including the operating rules in 31 CFR 1020.315(e)(2)-(9). A bank must also take steps to document compliance with its suspicious activity monitoring obligations under 31 CFR 1020.315(h)(2). The steps that the bank takes under 31 CFR 1020.315(e) must be those that a reasonable and prudent bank would take and document to protect itself from fraud or loss based on misidentification of a person's status and, in the case of the suspicious activity monitoring obligations, to identify suspicious transactions.
31 CFR 1020.315(h)(1) states that the CTR exemption rules do not relieve a bank of its obligation to report any suspicious transactions pursuant to 31 CFR 1020.320, including any suspicious transactions or attempted transactions in currency associated with the accounts of an exempt person, or relieve a bank of any other reporting or recordkeeping obligation imposed under the authority of the BSA.
Under 31 CFR 1020.315(h)(2), a bank must establish and maintain a monitoring system that is reasonably designed to detect, for each account of a non-listed business or payroll customer, transactions in currency that would require a bank to file a suspicious activity report (SAR).
• Renewal without change of a currently approved information collection.
• Propose for review and comment a renewal of the portion of the PRA burden that has been subject to notice and comment in the past (the “traditional annual PRA burden”).
• Propose for review and comment a future expansion of the scope of the PRA burden (the “supplemental annual PRA burden”).
In Part 1 of this notice, FinCEN describes the breakdown of the estimated number of financial institutions, by type. In Part 2, FinCEN proposes for review and comment a renewal of the estimate of the traditional annual PRA hourly burden, which includes a scope and methodology similar to that used in the past, with the incorporation of a more robust cost estimate. The scope and methodology used in the past was limited to filling out, filing, and maintaining a copy of the DOEP Report filed. In Part 3, FinCEN proposes for review and comment a methodology to estimate a future estimate of a supplemental annual PRA burden that includes the burden and cost to a bank related to the regulatory requirements to: (1) Determine the initial eligibility of exempt persons, document the bank's basis for its conclusion, and document compliance with,
Banks are the only financial institutions covered by this notice. FinCEN estimates there are 11,161 banks.
The scope of the traditional annual PRA burden was limited to the annual burden of filling out, filing, and maintaining a record of the initial filed DOEP Report.
FinCEN continues to estimate the annual hourly burden of the designation of exempt persons as one hour per form. This estimate covers the burden of: (1) 45 minutes to fill out and file the report; and (2) 15 minutes to save the report electronically and print out a copy to keep in hard-copy files. FinCEN believes that the information required to be included on the DOEP Report is basic information that banks need to maintain to conduct business. The e-filing system prompts banks to save the report after submission.
FinCEN's estimate of the traditional annual PRA burden, therefore, is 18,141 hours, as detailed in Table 1 below:
To calculate
FinCEN calculated the fully-loaded hourly wage for each of these three roles by using the median wage estimated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
FinCEN estimates that,
For initial filing, the cost of each hour of burden would be one burden hour at $48.00 representing the actual completion and filing of the report broken down by each role as shown in Table 3 below:
The total estimated cost of the traditional annual PRA burden is $780,063, as reflected in Table 4 below:
In the future, FinCEN intends to add a supplemental annual PRA burden calculation that will include the estimated hourly burden and cost to: (1) Determine the initial eligibility of exempt persons, document the basis for the consideration, and document compliance with the DOEP reporting requirements; (2) conduct an annual review to determine whether certain exempt persons remain eligible for the CTR exemption, and, consistent with that review, to maintain a monitoring system to identify suspicious transactions associated with the accounts of non-listed business and payroll customers; and (3) identify suspicious transactions associated with accounts of non-listed business and payroll customers.
FinCEN assesses that the information required to be included on the DOEP Report is basic information banks need to maintain to conduct business. In addition, FinCEN's electronic filing (e-filing) system allows banks to open a filed electronic DOEP Report that is pre-populated with the information from the prior filing. Banks can amend the status of an exempt person (including
As noted in Section I above, for all identified and reported designation of exempt persons, banks are required to establish and maintain a monitoring system designed to annually review the eligibility of a listed entity, a subsidiary of a listed entity, a non-listed business customer, or a payroll customer to determine whether they remain eligible for the exemption from the banks' requirement to report transactions in currency of over $10,000. As part of the annual review, banks must also review the application of the monitoring system, required to be maintained under 31 CFR 1020.315(h)(2), to each existing account of a non-listed business or payroll customer.
FinCEN does not have the necessary information to provide an estimate in this notice of the supplemental PRA hourly burden and cost associated with the annual review of eligibility of exempt persons, the operating rules set out in 31 CFR 1020.315(e), and the monitoring system required under 31 CFR 1020.315(h)(2). In addition, FinCEN does not have all the necessary information to more accurately estimate the traditional annual PRA burden. For that reason, FinCEN is relying on estimates used in prior renewals of this OMB control number and the applicable regulations. FinCEN further recognizes that after receiving public comments as a result of this notice, future traditional annual PRA hourly burden and cost estimates may vary significantly. FinCEN intends to conduct more granular studies of the actions included in the proposed scope of the supplemental annual PRA burden in the near future, to arrive at more accurate estimates of net BSA hourly burden and cost.
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. Records required to be retained under the BSA must be retained for five years.
FinCEN invites comments on any aspect of the traditional annual PRA burden, as set out in Part 2 of this notice. In particular, FinCEN seeks comments on the adequacy of: (1) FinCEN's assumptions underlying its burden estimate; (2) the estimated number of hours required by each portion of the burden; and (3) the organizational roles of the bank engaged in each portion of the burden, the roles' estimated hourly remuneration, and the estimated proportion of time spent by each role on the requirements. FinCEN encourages commenters to include any publicly available sources for alternative estimates or methodologies.
FinCEN invites comments on any aspect of the criteria for a future estimate of the supplemental annual PRA burden, as set out in Part 3 of this notice.
FinCEN invites comments on the most appropriate and comprehensive means to question banks about the annual hourly burden and cost attributable solely to comply with the DOEP reporting requirements (
The supplemental annual PRA hourly burden and cost estimate of the recordkeeping and reporting necessary to comply with the transactions of exempt persons regulations (determination of eligibility, maintenance of records, annual review, maintenance of monitoring system, and reporting of suspicious transactions) must take into consideration only the effort involved in obtaining those data elements that are used exclusively for complying with requirements under 31 CFR 1020.315. Given the complexity in determining that effort and how to incorporate it into the estimate, FinCEN seeks comments from the public regarding any questions we should consider posing in future notices, in addition to the specific questions for comment outlined directly below. While FinCEN has information on the number and type of DOEP Reports, FinCEN is unable to more accurately allocate the estimates among the number of banks. FinCEN welcomes any suggestions as to how to derive these estimates by using publicly available financial information.
• On average, how many accounts does your bank maintain for which the account holder meets the definition of exempt person?
• On average, how many accounts does your bank maintain that require a determination as to whether the accountholder meets the definition of exempt person?
• On average, how many accounts does your bank maintain for which the account holder meets the definition of a listed business or is a subsidiary of a listed business?
• On average, how many accounts does your bank maintain for which the account holders are non-listed businesses or payroll customers?
• On average, how long does the review process take to determine if an accountholder is eligible for a designation of exempt person status?
• On average, how long does the completion and filing of a DOEP Report take?
• On average, how many employees, officers, or managers are responsible for determining the eligibility of exempt persons?
• Which roles are typically more involved and how long does each role spend on determining the eligibility of exempt persons?
• How many approvals are necessary to determine the eligibility of exempt persons? To finalize and submit the DOEP Report?
• On average, how many initial DOEP Reports does your bank file on an annual basis?
• On average, how long does it take your bank to complete an initial filing?
• On average, how frequently does your bank amend a report?
• On average, how long does it take your bank to amend a report, including
• On average, how many employees are involved and how many approvals are necessary to complete an initial or amended filing?
• Does your bank have a review and approval process involving senior management to evaluate the conclusions reached in the determination for eligibility of an exempt person?
• Does your bank have a review and approval process involving senior management for amending or revoking the eligibility of an exempt person? On average, how long does the review process take and how many approvals are necessary?
• On average, how often does your bank review the eligibility of an exempt person?
• On average, how many accounts where the accountholder is an exempt person does your bank review at least annually?
• Does your bank maintain a monitoring system to comply with the DOEP reporting requirements?
• Does your bank review the monitoring system at least once a year?
• On average, how long does it take to review the monitoring system and how many approvals are necessary?
• Does your bank maintain records of the annual review?
• On average, how long does it take to prepare and maintain records of the review?
• Does your bank have a review and approval process involving senior management to evaluate the conclusions reached in the annual review of eligibility?
• On average, how long does the annual review process take and how many approvals are necessary?
• Does your bank maintain a separate monitoring system to track designation of exempt persons for reasons other than to comply with the reporting requirements under 31 CFR 1020.315?
• Does your bank maintain a separate monitoring system to identify suspicious activity associated with the accounts of designated exempt persons?
• Does your bank have a review and approval process involving senior management to evaluate the conclusions reached in the determination of whether a SAR must be filed for an exempt account? On average, how long does the review process take and how many approvals are necessary?
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. Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) 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; and 5) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List 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
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; or Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On January 15, 2021, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. ALVAREZ CASAS, Lazaro Alberto, Cuba; DOB 1963; Gender Male (individual) [GLOMAG].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C)(1) of Executive Order 13818 of December 20, 2017, “Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption,” 82 FR 60839, 3 CFR, 2018 Comp., p. 399, (E.O. 13818) for being a foreign person who is or has been a leader or official of an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, serious human rights abuse relating to the leader's or official's tenure.
1. MINISTRY OF INTERIOR (a.k.a. MINISTERIO DEL INTERIOR; a.k.a. “MININT”), Aranguren and Carlos Manuel de Cespedes, Havana, Cuba; Organization Established Date Jun 1961 [GLOMAG].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 13818 for being a foreign person who is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in, serious human rights abuse.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments should be received on or before March 26, 2021 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Kinna Brewington, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at (202) 317-5751 or Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 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.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning treaty-based return position disclosure.
Written comments should be received on or before March 26, 2021 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Kinna Brewington, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at (202) 317-5751 or Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 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.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of modified system of records.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs is amending the system of records currently entitled “Health Program Evaluation—VA” (107VA008B) as set forth in the
Comments on this modified system of records must be received no later than 30 days after date of publication in the
Written comments may be submitted through
Office of Enterprise Integration (OEI), Ryan J. Stiegman, Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420; telephone (202) 461-5800.
Health Program Evaluation—VA (107VA008B) has been amended to reflect the current organizational alignment; new mail addresses, and updated point of contact information. The Department has also made minor edits to the System Notice for clarity, completeness, grammar, and to reflect plain language.
The System Location Section has been amended to provide an update to the name of VA's Austin Information Technology Center at 1615 Woodward St., Austin, TX 78772.
The System Manager, Notification Procedure, Record Access Procedure and Contesting Record Procedures name and address information have been changed to reflect new organizational alignments. The System Manager is Executive Director, Office of Enterprise Integration, Data Governance and Analytics (008B1), VA Central Office, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420. Finally, the Report of Intent to Publish has been amended to include a link to a more complete description of the duties and activities of the Office of Enterprise Integration at
Minor changes to Routine Use language have been done in updating language to use VA's library of approved VA routine uses. Changes to improve clarity or organizational address information include the following Routine Uses.
Routine Use One (1) has been amended for clarification to “VA may disclose information from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.” VA must be able to provide information about individuals to adequately respond to inquiries from Members of Congress at the request of constituents who have sought their assistance.
Routine Use Two (2) has been amended to use current updated language for National Archives and Record Administration (NARA) and General Services Administration (GSA) that reads “VA may disclose information from this system to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and General Services Administration (GSA) in records management inspections conducted under title 44, U.S.C.” NARA is responsible for archiving old records which are no longer actively used but may be appropriate for preservation, and for the physical maintenance of the Federal government's records. VA must be able to provide the records to NARA in order to determine the proper disposition of such records.
Routine Use Four (4) has been amended to use current VA update language for this use. This language states “VA may disclose information from this system of records to individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities or individuals with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform such services as VA may deem practicable for the purposes of laws administered by VA, in order for the contractor, subcontractor, public or private agency, or other entity or individual with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform services under the contract or agreement.”
“This routine use includes disclosures by an individual or entity performing services for VA to any secondary entity or individual to perform an activity that is necessary for individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities or individuals with whom VA has a contract or agreement to provide the service to VA.”
This routine use, which also applies to agreements that do not qualify as contracts defined by Federal procurement laws and regulations, is consistent with OMB guidance in OMB Circular A-130, App. I, paragraph 5a (1) (b) that agencies promulgate routine uses to address disclosure of Privacy Act-protected information to contractors in order to perform the services contracts for the agency.
Routine Use Six (6) has been amended to use the current VA update language for this particular use. This amendment reads “VA may, on its own initiative, disclose information from this system to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that the integrity or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of embarrassment or harm to the reputations of the record subjects, harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security, confidentiality, or integrity of this system or other systems or
This routine use permits disclosures by the Department to respond to a suspected or confirmed data breach, including the conduct of any risk analysis or provision of credit protection services as provided in 38 U.S.C. 5724.
a. Effective Response. A federal agency's ability to respond quickly and effectively in the event of a breach of federal data is critical to its efforts to prevent or minimize any consequent harm. An effective response necessitates disclosure of information regarding the breach to those individuals affected by it, as well as to persons and entities in a position to cooperate, either by assisting in notification to affected individuals or playing a role in preventing or minimizing harms from the breach.
b. Disclosure of Information. Often, the information to be disclosed to such persons and entities is maintained by federal agencies and is subject to the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of any record in a system of records by any means of communication to any person or agency absent the written consent of the subject individual, unless the disclosure falls within one of twelve statutory exceptions. In order to ensure an agency is in the best position to respond in a timely and effective manner, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a (b) (3) of the Privacy Act, agencies should publish a routine use for appropriate systems specifically applying to the disclosure of information in connection with response and remedial efforts in the event of a data breach.
Routine Use Seven (7) providing current posting location of “Privacy Act Guidance—Update” has been amended to
The notice of intent to publish and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677), December 12, 2000.
Routine Use Eight (8) VA may, on its own initiative, disclose information in this system, except the names and home addresses of veterans and their dependents, which is relevant to a suspected or reasonably imminent violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, to a Federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order. On its own initiative, VA may also disclose the names and addresses of veterans and their dependents to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto.
VA must be able to provide on its own initiative information that pertains to a violation of laws to law enforcement authorities in order for them to investigate and enforce those laws. Under 38 U.S.C. 5701(a) and (f), VA may only disclose the names and addresses of veterans and their dependents to Federal entities with law enforcement responsibilities. This is distinct from the authority to disclose records in response to a qualifying request from a law enforcement entity, as authorized by Privacy Act subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(7).
The Report of Intent to Amend a System of Records Notice and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate congressional committees and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677), December 12, 2000.
The Senior Agency Official for Privacy, 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. James P. Gfrerer, Assistant Secretary of Information and Technology and Chief Information Officer, approved this document on April 17, 2020 for publication.
Health Program Evaluation—VA
Electronic records are located on the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA's) secured servers housed at VA's Austin Information Technology Center, 1615 Woodward St., Austin, TX 78772. Records necessary for a contractor to perform under a VA-approved contract are located at the respective contractor's facility.
Authority to maintain this system of Record is contained in Title 38, U.S.C 527.
For the conduct of health-related qualitative, quantitative, and actuarial analyses and projections to support policy analyses and recommendations for improving VA services for Veterans and their families. Analysis and review of health data, policy and planning issues affecting Veterans programs to support legislative, regulatory, policy recommendations and initiatives.
1. Veterans who have applied for healthcare services or benefits under 38 U.S.C.
2. Veterans' spouse, surviving spouse, previous spouse, children, and parents who have applied for healthcare services or benefits under 38 U.S.C.
3. Beneficiaries of other Federal agencies or other governmental entities.
4. Individuals examined or treated under contract or resource sharing agreements.
5. Individuals examined or treated for research or donor purposes.
6. Individuals who have applied for 38 U.S.C. benefits but who do not meet the requirements under 38 U.S.C. to receive such benefits.
7. Individuals who were provided medical care under emergency conditions for humanitarian reasons.
8. Pensioned members of allied forces provided healthcare services under 38 U.S.C.
Records include identification numbers, contact and location information, demographic information,
Information is obtained from VHA and other VA staff offices and Administrations, OPP's National Survey of Veterans, national survey's (
To the extent that records contained in the system include information protected by 45 CFR parts 160 and 164,
1. The record of an individual who is covered by a system of records may be disclosed to a Member of Congress or a staff person acting for the Member, when the Member or staff person requests the record on behalf of and at the written request of the individual.
2. VA may disclose information from this system to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and General Services Administration (GSA) in records management inspections conducted under title 44, U.S.C.
3. Any system records may be disclosed to a Federal agency for the conduct of research and data analysis to perform a statutory purpose of that Federal agency upon the prior written request of that agency, provided that there is legal authority under all applicable confidentiality statutes and regulations to provide the data and OEI has determined prior to the disclosure that OEI data handling requirements are satisfied. OEI may disclose limited individual identification information to another Federal agency for the purpose of matching and acquiring information held by that agency for OEI to use for the purposes stated for this system of records.
4. VA may disclose information from this system of records to individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities or individuals with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform such services as VA may deem practicable for the purposes of laws administered by VA, in order for the contractor, subcontractor, public or private agency, or other entity or individual with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform services under the contract or agreement.
5. Any system records may be disclosed to the Office of Management and Budget in order for them to perform their statutory responsibilities of evaluating Federal programs.
6. VA may, on its own initiative, disclose information from this system to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that the integrity or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of embarrassment or harm to the reputations of the record subjects, harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security, confidentiality, or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the potentially compromised information; and (3) the disclosure is to agencies, entities, or persons whom VA determines are reasonably necessary to assist or carry out the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
7. VA may disclose information in this system of records to the Department of Justice (DOJ), either on VA's initiative or in response to DOJ's request for the information, after either VA or DOJ determines that such information is relevant to DOJ's representation of the United States or any of its components in legal proceedings before a court or adjudicative body, provided that, in each case, the agency also determines prior to disclosure that disclosure of the records to DOJ is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records. VA, on its own initiative, may disclose records in this system of records in legal proceedings before a court or administrative body after determining that the disclosure of the records to the court or administrative body is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records. In determining whether to disclose records under this routine use, VA will comply with the guidance promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget in a May 24, 1985, memorandum entitled “Privacy Act Guidance—Update”, currently posted at
8. VA may disclose on its own initiative any information in this system, except the names and home addresses of Veterans and their dependents, which is relevant to a suspected or reasonably imminent violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, to a Federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order. On its own initiative, VA may also disclose the names and addresses of Veterans and their dependents to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto.
VA sensitive information, including individually identifiable health information, is stored on a segregated secure server. Data stored on secure servers are located at the Austin Information Technology Center (AITC). Databases are temporarily placed on a secured server inside a restricted network area for data match purposes only. Information that resides on a segregated server is kept behind locked doors with limited access. Requestors of OEI stored health information within VA, or from external individuals, contractors, organizations, and/or
Individually-identified health care information is kept in two forms. The first form is the original data file containing the names and social security numbers of the record subjects. OEI assigns unique codes derived from social security numbers to these individual records prior to conducting analyses on the data. The original records may be retrieved using social security number, military service number, claim or file number, DoD identification number, or other personal numerical identifiers. The records containing the encrypted identifiers may be retrieved only by those identifiers.
Electronic records are archived to provide verification of analysis and to provide data for identifying trends that effect veteran beneficiaries and their VA programs. Destruction of any sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII) or Protected Health Information (PHI) data is done by deleting information on OIT national data support servers. OEI no longer stores paper beneficiary records in its facilities. Records are maintained and disposed of in accordance with records disposition authority approved by the Archivist of the United States. If the Archivist has not approved disposition authority for any records covered by the system notice, the System Manager will take immediate action to have the disposition of records in the system reviewed and paperwork initiated to obtain an approved records disposition authority in accordance with VA Handbook 6300.1, Records Management Procedures. OEI will publish an amendment to this notice upon issuance of NARA-approved disposition authority. The records may not be destroyed until VA obtains an approved records disposition authority. OEI destroys electronic files when no longer needed for administrative, legal, audit, or other operational purposes. In accordance with Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 1234.34, Destruction of Electronic Records, “electronic records may be destroyed only in accordance with a records disposition schedule approved by the Archivist of the United States, including General Records Schedules.”
This list of safeguards furnished in this System of Record is a general statement of measures taken to protect health information. For example, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidelines for protecting health information will be followed and OEI will adopt evolving health care industry best practices in order to provide adequate safeguards. Further, VA policy directives that specify the standards that will be applied to protect record level information will be provided to VA staff and contractors through mandatory data privacy and security training.
Access to data storage areas is restricted to authorized VA employee or contract staff who has been cleared to work by the VA Office of Operations, Security, and Preparedness. Health information file areas are locked after normal duty hours. VA facilities are protected from outside access by the Federal Protective Service and/or other security personnel.
Access to health information provided by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) pursuant to a Business Associate Agreement (BAA) is restricted to those OEI employees and contractors who have a need for the information in the performance of their official duties related to the terms of the BAA. As a general rule, full sets of health care information are not provided for use unless authorized by the System Manager the Executive Director for OEI Data Governance and Analysis (DG&A). File extracts provided for specific official uses will be limited to the minimum necessary amount and contain only the information fields needed for the analysis. Data used for analyses will have individual identifying characteristics removed whenever possible.
Security complies with applicable Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Health information files containing unique identifiers such as social security numbers are encrypted to NIST-verified FIPS 140-2 standard or higher for storage, transport, or transmission. The primary site for data analysis, storage and transfer is located on a segregated server at the Austin Information Technology Center. All files containing PII in transit or at rest are encrypted. Files are kept encrypted at all times except when data is in immediate use, per specifications by VA Office of Information Technology. NIST publications were consulted in development of security for this system of records.
Contractors and their subcontractors are required to maintain the same level of security as VA staff for health care information that has been disclosed to them. Any data disclosed to a contractor or subcontractor to perform authorized analyses requires the use of Data Use Agreements, Non-Disclosure Statements and Business Associates Agreements to protect health information. Unless explicitly authorized in writing by the VA, sensitive or protected data made available to the contractor and subcontractors shall not be divulged or made known in any manner to any other person. Other federal or state agencies requesting health care information need to execute Data Use Agreements to protect data.
OEI's System Manager is Kshemendra Paul, Executive Director, Office of Enterprise Integration, Data Governance and Analytics (008B1), VA Central Office, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420, 202-461-1052,
An individual (or duly authorized representative of such individual) who seeks access to or wishes to contest records maintained under his or her name or other personal identifier may write, call or visit the individuals listed under Notification Procedure below.
(See Record Access Procedures above.)
An individual who wishes to determine whether a record is being maintained in this system under his or her name or other personal identifier, or wants to determine the contents of such record, should submit a written request to the System Manager, Executive Director, Office of Enterprise Integration, Data Governance and Analytics (008B1), VA Central Office, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420. Such requests must contain a reasonable description of the records requested. All inquiries must reasonably identify the health care information involved and the approximate date that medical care was provided. Inquiries should include the patient's full name, social security number, telephone number and return address.
None.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Health Administration (VHA).
Notice of a Modified System of Records.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e), notice is hereby given that the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) is amending the system of records currently entitled “Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER)-VA” (168VA10P2) as set forth in the
Comments on the amendment of this system of records must be received no later than February 24, 2021. If no public comment is received during the period allowed for comment or unless otherwise published in the
Written comments may be submitted through
Office of Information and Technology (OI&T), Privacy Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, 1100 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20420, telephone (202) 632-7524. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The System Name is being changed from “Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER)-VA” to “Health Information Exchange-VA”.
The System Number is changed from 168VA10P2 to 168VA005 to reflect the current departmental alignment.
The System Location is being amended to add Philadelphia Information Technology Center, 3900 Woodland Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19104; Amazon Web Services (AWS) Government Cloud (GovCloud), 410 Terry Ave North, Seattle, WA 98109 and the Cerner Technology Centers (CTC): Primary Data Center in Kansas City, MO and Continuity of Operations/Disaster Recovery (COOP/DR) Data Center in Lees Summit, MO.
The System Manager is being amended to replace Director Standards and Interoperability, Chief Health Informatics Office/Office of Informatics and Analytics/Veterans Health Information with Chief Technology & Integration Officer Veterans Affairs Office of Electronic Health Record Modernization at 811 Vermont Avenue Office 5084 Washington, DC 20420.
The Purpose is being amended to remove VLER/Nationwide Health Information Network (NwHIN) partners. Being added is information stored in VA computer systems, such as the Data Access Service (DAS) and VA contracted computer systems which are used for benefit and claims adjudication as well as data for VA Data Sharing and Interoperability Initiatives with VA partners. These partners include, but are not limited to, Veteran Health Information Exchange (VHIE) external partners, The Sequoia Project, eHealth Exchange partners, Direct Partners, Carequality, CommonWell, VA-approved third party payers and contracted providers, educational affiliates, Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs), VA AppCatalog Mobile applications, federal agencies (to include Indian Health Service, Bureau of Prisons, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Social Security Administration (SSA), Department of Defense (DoD), Health and Human Services, and others), and State Registries. This section adds “for health care operations and reimbursement for care provided” as purposes of the data.
The Categories of Individuals Covered by the System is being amended to remove caveat of VA employees who access information through VLER to state “VA employees” and add VA contractors. In addition, other VA patients, VA contracted and private providers and payers, VA contracted Health Information Handlers, VSO staff, and VA system integrators who resolve information technology (IT) trouble tickets, DoD providers, educational affiliate staff with approved VA access.
The Categories of Records in the System is being amended to add scanned & imported paper records & non-radiology images, Service Treatment Record (STR) (and transformed DAS STR), Community Health Summaries—DoD, Questionnaires and Deployment Assessments (Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) only), Contact Logs, Diet, Patient Mood and Immunizations as examples under patient demographic and health information from external health care providers and VHIE external partners; and opt-out forms, participate in sharing after opting out forms and future forms developed for VHIE as examples under information on Veterans' preferences regarding the sharing of their health information. This section will add information on health information exchange and Direct users, claims adjudication information, research records, education information and device or patient created data.
The Records Source Category is being amended to replace 79VA19 with 79VA10A7, 121VA19 with 121VA10A7, and 24VA19 with 24VA10A7. Federal and non-federal VLER/NwHIN partners and DoD is being removed and replaced with VHIE external partners. This section will add eHealth Exchange partners, Carequality and CommonWell, Direct Messaging providers, non-VA care providers, patient or individual device generated data through a VA AppCatalog Mobile application, homeless shelters, government agencies such as DoD, SSA, IRS, Health and Human Services, Bureau of Prisons, Indian Health Services and others, and State Registries.
The Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System has been amended by amending the language in Routine Use #6 which states that disclosure of the records to the Department of Justice (DoJ) is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records. VA may disclose records in this system of
Routine use #15 is being added to state, “Disclosure of Veteran identifiers and demographic information (
Routine use #16 is being added to state, “VA may disclose information from this system to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when VA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.” VA needs this routine use for the data breach response and remedial efforts with another Federal agency.
Routine use #17 is being added to state, To disclose to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (including its General Counsel) information related to the establishment of jurisdiction, the investigation and resolution of allegations of unfair labor practices, or information in connection with the resolution of exceptions to arbitration awards when a question of material fact is raised; to disclose information in matters properly before the Federal Services Impasses Panel, and to investigate representation petitions and conduct or supervise representation elections. VA must be able to provide information to FLRA to comply with the statutory mandate under which it operates.
Policies and Practices for Storage of Records is being amended to remove storage area network (SAN) and mobile devices and add electronic storage media including, but not limited to, magnetic tape, disk, laser optical media and solid-state flash media.
The Retrievability section is being amended to add electronic data interchange personal identifier (EDIPI), medical record number, problem list, geographic location and other demographic, medical or medication information.
Policies and Practices for Retention and Disposal is being amended to replace `in accordance with the records disposition authority approved by the Archivist of the United States, health information stored on electronic media storage is maintained for seventy-five (75) years after the last episode of patient care and then deleted' with GRS 4.3 Items 020, 030, 031 and Electronic Health Records schedule, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) job #N1-15-02-3, item 1a, 1b, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
The Administrative, Technical and Physical Safeguards section is being amended to add, “Access to Cerner Technology Centers is generally restricted to Cerner employees, contractors or associates with a Cerner issued ID badge and other security personnel cleared for access to the data center. Access to computer rooms housing Federal data, hence Federal enclave, is restricted to persons Federally cleared for Federal enclave access through electronic badge entry devices. All other persons, such as custodians, gaining access to Federal enclave are escorted.”
Records Access Procedure is being amended to replace Director Standards and Interoperability, Chief Health Informatics Office/Office of Informatics and Analytics/Veterans Health Information, with Director, VHIE, Office of Health Informatics/Veterans Health Administration and to add “or contact their closest VA Medical Center (VAMC)”. Being added to this section is that requests should contain the full name, address and telephone number of the individual making the inquiry.
The Report of Intent to Amend a System of Records Notice and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677), December 12, 2000.
The Senior Agency Official for Privacy, 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. James P. Gfrerer, Assistant Secretary of Information and Technology and Chief Information Officer, approved this document on July 24, 2020 for publication.
“Health Information Exchange-VA” (168VA005).
None.
Records are maintained at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Austin Information Technology Center (AITC), 1615 Woodward Street, Austin, TX 78772, Philadelphia Information Technology Center (PITC), 3900 Woodland Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19104; Amazon Web Services (AWS) Government Cloud (GovCloud), 410 Terry Ave. North, Seattle, WA 98109; and Cerner Technology Centers (CTC): Primary Data Center in Kansas City, MO and Continuity of Operations/Disaster Recovery (COOP/DR) Data Center in Lees Summit, MO.
Official maintaining this system of records and responsible for policies and procedures is Chief Technology & Integration Officer Veterans Affairs, Office of Electronic Health Record Modernization at 811 Vermont Avenue Office 5084 Washington, DC 20420.
Title 38, United States Code, Section 501.
The records and information stored in VA computer systems, including the Data Access Service (DAS) and VA contracted systems, such as Cerner products, may be used for the ongoing communication of current healthcare, benefit and claims adjudication data, for VA Data Sharing and interoperability initiatives with VA partners. These
The records contain information on Veterans and the family members or caregivers; members of the armed services, Reserves or National Guard, other VA patients, VA employees and contractors, VA contracted and private providers and payers, VA contracted Health Information Handlers, VSO staff, DoD providers, education affiliate staff with approved VA access, and VA system integrators who resolve information technology (IT) trouble tickets.
The records may include patient demographic information (
Information in this system of records is provided by Veterans and their family members or caregivers, members of the Armed Services, Reserves or National Guard, other VA patients, VA employees and contractors, VA computer systems, Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA)-VA (79VA10A7), National Patient Databases-VA (121VA10A7), Patient Medical Record—VA (24VA10A7), VA contracted computer systems, HIE external partners, Direct Messaging providers, non-VA care providers, VA AppCatalog Mobile application, homeless shelters, State Registries, and government agencies such as DoD, SSA, IRS, Health and Human Services, Bureau of Prisons, Indian Health Services and others.
To the extent that records contained in the system include information protected by 45 CFR parts 160 and 164,
1. VA may disclose any information in this system, except the names and home addresses of Veterans and their dependents, which is relevant to a suspected or reasonably imminent violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, to a Federal, State, local, tribal, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order. VA may also disclose the names and addresses of Veterans and their dependents to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto.
2. Disclosure may be made to any source from which additional information is requested (to the extent necessary to identify the individual, inform the source of the purpose(s) of the request, and to identify the type of information requested), when necessary to obtain information relevant to an individual's eligibility, care history, or other benefits.
3. Disclosure of information to a health participant for the purpose of providing care or treatment to VA patients, reimbursement for health care services, or determining eligibility for government disability benefits.
4. The record of an individual who is covered by a system of records may be disclosed to a Member of Congress, or a staff person acting for the Member, when the Member or staff person requests the record on behalf of and at the written request of the individual.
5. Disclosure may be made to NARA and the General Services Administration (GSA) in records management inspections conducted under authority of Title 44, Chapter 29, of the United States Code (U.S.C.).
6. VA may disclose information in this system of records to the Department of Justice (DoJ), either on VA's initiative or in response to DoJ's request for the information, after either VA or DoJ determines that such information is relevant to DoJ's representation of the United States or any of its components in legal proceedings before a court or adjudicative body, provided that, in each case, the agency also determines prior to disclosure that release of the records to the DoJ is limited to circumstances where relevant and necessary to the litigation. VA may disclose records in this system of records in legal proceedings before a court or administrative body after determining that release of the records to the court or administrative body is limited to circumstances where relevant and necessary to the litigation.
7. Disclosure may be made to a national certifying body which has the authority to make decisions concerning the issuance, retention or revocation of
8. VA may disclose information to officials of the Merit Systems Protection Board MSPB), or the Office of Special Counsel, when requested in connection with appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of rules and regulations, investigation of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices, and such other functions, promulgated in 5 U.S.C. 1205 and 1206, or as authorized by law.
9. VA may disclose information to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when requested in connection with investigations of alleged or possible discriminatory practices, examination of Federal affirmative employment programs, or for other functions of the Commission as authorized by law or regulation.
10. VA may disclose to the Fair Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) (including its General Counsel) information related to the establishment of jurisdiction, the investigation and resolution of allegations of unfair labor practices, or information in connection with the resolution of exceptions to arbitration awards when a question of material fact is raised; to disclose information in matters properly before the Federal Services Impasse Panel, and to investigate representation petitions and conduct or supervise representation elections.
11. Disclosures of relevant information may be made to individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities with whom VA has a contract or agreement or where there is a subcontract to perform the services as VA may deem practicable for the purposes of laws administered by VA, in order for the contractor or subcontractor to perform the services of the contract or agreement.
12. Disclosure to other Federal agencies may be made to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
13. VA may disclose any information or records to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that the integrity or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of embarrassment or harm to the reputations of the record subjects, harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security, confidentiality, or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the potentially compromised information; and (3) the disclosure is to agencies, entities, or persons whom VA determines are reasonably necessary to assist or carry out the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
14. VA may disclose information from this system to a Federal agency for the purpose of conducting research and data analysis to perform a statutory purpose of that Federal agency upon the prior written request of that agency, provided that there is legal authority under all applicable confidentiality statutes and regulations to provide the data and VA has determined prior to the disclosure that the VA data handling requirements are satisfied.
15. Disclosure of Veteran identifiers and demographic information (
16. VA may disclose information from this system to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when VA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
17. To disclose to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (including its General Counsel) information related to the establishment of jurisdiction, the investigation and resolution of allegations of unfair labor practices, or information in connection with the resolution of exceptions to arbitration awards when a question of material fact is raised; to disclose information in matters properly before the Federal Services Impasses Panel, and to investigate representation petitions and conduct or supervise representation elections.
Records are maintained on electronic storage media including, but not limited to, magnetic tape, disk, laser optical media and solid-state flash media.
Records are retrieved by electronic data interchange personal identifier (EDIPI), problem list, geographic location and other demographic, medical or medication information, name, social security number or other assigned identifiers of the individuals on whom they are maintained. For reporting purposes records can also be retrieved by Internal Control Number (ICN).
GRS 4.3 Items 020, 030, 031 and Electronic Health Records schedule, NARA job #N1-15-02-3, item 1a, 1b, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
1. Access to and use of national administrative databases, warehouses, and data marts are limited to those persons whose official duties require such access, and the VA implements Federal Information Security Management Act mandated security protocols or, when appropriate, has established security procedures to ensure that access is appropriately limited. Information security officers and system data stewards review and authorize data access requests. VA regulates data access with security software that authenticates users and requires individually unique codes and passwords. VA provides information security training to all staff and instructs staff on the responsibility each person has for safeguarding data confidentiality.
2. Physical access to computer rooms housing national administrative databases, warehouses, and data marts is restricted to authorized staff and protected by a variety of security devices. Unauthorized employees, contractors, and other staff are not allowed in computer rooms. The Federal Protective Service or other security personnel provide physical security for the buildings housing computer rooms and data centers.
3. Data transmissions between operational systems and national administrative databases, warehouses,
4. In most cases, copies of back-up computer files are maintained at off-site locations.
5. Access to Cerner Technology Centers is generally restricted to Cerner employees, contractors or associates with a Cerner issued ID badge and other security personnel cleared for access to the data center. Access to computer rooms housing Federal data, hence Federal enclave, is restricted to persons Federally cleared for Federal enclave access through electronic badge entry devices. All other persons, such as custodians, gaining access to Federal enclave are escorted.
6. The AWS GovCloud infrastructure as a service cloud-computing environment has been authorized at the high-impact level under the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP). The secure site-to-site encrypted network connection is limited to access via the VA trusted internet connection (TIC).
Individuals seeking information regarding access to and contesting of records in this system may write the Director, VHIE, Office of Health Informatics/Veterans Health Administration at VACO, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, or contact their closest VAMC. Requests should contain the full name, address and telephone number of the individual making the inquiry.
(See Record Access Procedures above.)
Individuals who wish to determine whether this system of records contains information about them should contact their closest VAMC. Inquiries should include the person's full name, social security number, location and dates of treatment or location and dates of employment and their return address.
None.
Last full publication provided in 77 FR 27859 dated May 11, 2012.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Health Administration (VHA).
Notice of a new system of records.
The Privacy Act of 1974 requires that all agencies publish in the
Comments on this new system of records must be received no later than 30 days after date of publication in the
Written comments concerning the new system of records may be submitted by: Mail or hand-delivery to Director, Regulations Management (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; fax to (202) 273-9026; or Email to
CC Program Manager Office of Information and Technology (OIT), Enterprise Portfolio Management Division (EPMD), St. Petersburg Field Office, 9500 Bay Pines Boulevard, St. Petersburg, Florida 33708, Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1437, St. Petersburg, Florida 33708; telephone at (727) 230-9032 (this is not a toll-free number). VHA Office of Community Care, P.O. Box 469066, Denver, Colorado 80246.
The Community Care (CC) Provider Profile Management System (PPMS) is focused on the implementation and maintenance of a provider directory to be used by the multiple VA portfolios in maintaining the Community Care Network (CCN), TriWest Patient-Centered Community Care (PC3) and Choice Program, Individual Care Agreements, Veteran Care Agreements, VA Medical Center (VAMC) Local Contracts, Indian Health Service Providers, Department of Defense facilities, and VAMC providers.
We are proposing to establish the following Routine Use disclosures of information maintained in the system. PPMS will collect and retain personally identifiable information on non-VA health care providers. VA Provider publically available data is retained in the system, no personally identifiable information is collected on VA providers. These providers will be conducting health services with VA.
1. VA may disclose information from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual. VA must be able to provide information about individuals to adequately respond to inquiries from Members of Congress at the request of constituents who have sought their assistance.
2. VA may disclose any information or records to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) VA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk to individuals, VA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, or persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with VA efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
3. VA may disclose information in this system of records to the Department of Justice (DoJ), either on VA's initiative or in response to DoJ's request for the information, after either VA or DoJ determines that such information is relevant to DoJ's representation of the United States or any of its components in legal proceedings before a court or
4. VA may disclose information from this system of records to individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities or individuals with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform such services as VA may deem practicable for the purposes of laws administered by VA, in order for the contractor, subcontractor, public or private agency, or other entity or individual with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform services under the contract or agreement. This routine use includes disclosures by an individual or entity performing services for VA to any secondary entity or individual to perform an activity that is necessary for individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities or individuals with whom VA has a contract or agreement to provide the service to VA. This routine use, which also applies to agreements that do not qualify as contracts defined by Federal procurement laws and regulations, is consistent with OMB guidance in OMB Circular A-130, App. I, paragraph 5a(1)(b) that agencies promulgate routine uses to address disclosure of Privacy Act-protected information to contractors in order to perform the services contracts for the agency.
5. VA may disclose information from this system to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) when requested in connection with investigations of alleged or possible discriminatory practices, examination of Federal affirmative employment programs, or other functions of the Commission as authorized by law or regulation. VA must be able to provide information to EEOC to assist it in fulfilling its duties to protect employees' rights, as required by statute and regulation.
6. VA may disclose information from this system to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), including its General Counsel, information related to the establishment of jurisdiction, investigation, and resolution of allegations of unfair labor practices, or in connection with the resolution of exceptions to arbitration awards when a question of material fact is raised; for it to address matters properly before the Federal Services Impasses Panel, investigate representation petitions, and conduct or supervise representation elections. VA must be able to provide information to FLRA to comply with the statutory mandate under which it operates.
7. VA may disclose information from this system to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), or the Office of the Special Counsel, when requested in connection with appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of rules and regulations, investigation of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices, and such other functions promulgated in 5 U.S.C. 1205 and 1206, or as authorized by law. VA must be able to provide information to MSPB to assist it in fulfilling its duties as required by statute and regulation.
8. VA may disclose information from this system to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and General Services Administration (GSA) in records management inspections conducted under title 44, U.S.C. NARA is responsible for archiving old records which are no longer actively used but may be appropriate for preservation, and for the physical maintenance of the Federal government's records. Disclosure to other Federal agencies may be made to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
9. VA may disclose relevant information to: (1) A Federal agency or CC institutions and providers when VA refers a patient for hospital or nursing home care or medical services, or authorizes a patient to obtain non-VA medical services and the information is needed by the Federal agency or non-VA institution or provider to perform the services; or (2) a Federal agency or to a non-VA hospital (Federal, state, and local public or private) or other medical installation having hospital facilities, organ banks, blood banks, or similar institutions, medical schools or clinics, or other groups or individuals that have contracted or agreed to provide medical services or share the use of medical resources under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 513, 7409, 8111, or 8153, when treatment is rendered by VA under the terms of such contract or agreement or the issuance of an authorization, and the information is needed for purposes of medical treatment and/or follow-up, determining entitlement to a benefit, or for VA to effect recovery of the costs of the medical care.
10. VA may disclose information in this system, to a Federal, state, or local agency maintaining civil or criminal violation records, or other pertinent information such as prior employment history, prior Federal employment background investigations, and/or personal or educational background in order for VA to obtain information relevant to the hiring, transfer or retention of an employee, the letting of a contract, the granting of a security clearance, or the issuance of a grant or other benefit.
11. VA may disclose information from this system of records to a Federal agency or the District of Columbia government, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee and the issuance of a security clearance as required by law, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision.
12. Any information in this system may be disclosed to a state or local agency, upon its official request, to the extent that it is relevant and necessary to that agency's decision on: The hiring, transfer or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance or continuance of a license, grant or other benefit by the agency; provided, that the name and address is provided first by the requesting state or local agency.
13. VA may disclose information concerning CC providers, including name, address, and national provider idententification numbers which may be disclosed to the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, to report calendar year earnings of $600 or more for income tax reporting purposes.
14. VA may disclose information to the Department of the Treasury to facilitate payments to physicians, clinics, and pharmacies for reimbursement of services rendered, and to veterans for reimbursements of authorized expenses, or to collect, by set off or otherwise, debts owed the United States.
15. VA may disclose any relevant information from this system of records to attorneys, insurance companies, employers, third parties liable or potentially liable under health plan contracts, and to courts, boards, or commissions, but only to the extent necessary to aid VA in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims authorized under Federal, state, or local laws, and regulations promulgated thereunder.
16. VA may disclose identifying information in this system, including name, address, social security number, and other information as is reasonably necessary to identify such individual, to the National Practitioner Data Bank at the time of hiring and/or clinical privileging/re-privileging of health care practitioners, and other times as deemed necessary by VA, in order for VA to obtain information relevant to a Department decision concerning the hiring, privileging/re-privileging, retention, or termination of the applicant or employee.
17. VA may disclose relevant information from this system of records to the National Practitioner Data Bank and/or State Licensing Board in the state(s) in which a practitioner is licensed, in which the VA facility is located, and/or in which an act or omission occurred upon which a medical malpractice claim was based when VA reports information concerning: (1) Any payment for the benefit of a physician, dentist, or other licensed health care practitioner which was made as the result of a settlement or judgment of a claim of medical malpractice, if an appropriate determination is made in accordance with Department policy that payment was related to substandard care, professional incompetence, or professional misconduct on the part of the individual; (2) a final decision which relates to possible incompetence or improper professional conduct that adversely affects the clinical privileges of a physician or dentist for a period longer than 30 days; or (3) the acceptance of the surrender of clinical privileges or any restriction of such privileges by a physician or dentist, either while under investigation by the health care entity relating to possible incompetence or improper professional conduct, or in return for not conducting such an investigation or proceeding. These records may also be disclosed as part of a computer matching program to accomplish these purposes.
18. VA may disclose information from this system of records to a Federal agency or to a state or local government licensing board and/or to the Federation of State Medical Boards or a similar non-governmental entity which maintains records concerning individuals' employment histories or concerning the issuance, retention, or revocation of licenses, certifications, or registration necessary to practice an occupation, profession, or specialty, to inform a Federal agency or licensing boards or the appropriate non-governmental entities about the health care practices of a terminated, resigned, or retired health care employee whose professional health care activity so significantly failed to conform to generally accepted standards of professional medical practice as to raise reasonable concern for the health and safety of patients in the private sector or from another Federal agency. These records may also be disclosed as part of an ongoing computer matching program to accomplish these purposes.
19. For program review purposes and the seeking of accreditation and/or certification, VA may disclose health care information to survey teams of the Joint Commission, College of American Pathologists, American Association of Blood Banks, and similar national accreditation agencies or boards with which VA has a contract or agreement to conduct such reviews, but only to the extent that the information is necessary and relevant to the review.
20. VA may disclose information from this system to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when VA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
21. Disclosure to other Federal agencies may be made to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
22. VA may disclose information in this system which is relevant to a suspected or reasonably imminent violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, to a Federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order. VA may also disclose the names and addresses of providers to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto.
The Privacy Act permits VA to disclose information about individuals without their consent for a routine use when the information will be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the information. In all of the routine use disclosures described above, either the recipient of the information will use the information in connection with a matter relating to one of VA's programs, to provide a benefit to VA, or to disclose information as required by law.
Under section 264, Subtitle F of Title II of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Public Law 104-191, 100 Stat. 1936, 2033-34 (1996), the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a final rule, as amended, establishing Standards for Privacy of Individually-Identifiable Health Information, 45 CFR parts 160 and 164. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) may not disclose individually identifiable health information (as defined in HIPAA and the Privacy Rule, 42 U.S.C. 1320(d)(6) and 45 CFR 164.501) pursuant to a routine use unless either: (a) The disclosure is required by law, or (b) the disclosure is also permitted or required by HHS' Privacy Rule. The disclosures of individually-identifiable health information contemplated in the routine uses published in this new system of records notice are permitted under the Privacy Rule or required by law. However, to also have authority to make such disclosures under the Privacy Act, VA must publish these routine uses. Consequently, VA is publishing these routine uses to the routine uses portion of the system of records notice stating that any disclosure pursuant to the routine uses in this system of records notice must be either required by law or permitted by the Privacy Rule, before VHA may disclose the covered information.
The notice of intent to publish and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director, Office of Management and Budget, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677), December 12, 2000.
The Senior Agency Official for Privacy, 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. James P. Gfrerer, Assistant Secretary of Information and Technology and Chief Information
Community Care (CC) Provider Profile Management System (PPMS)-VA (186VA10D)
Unclassified.
Records are managed by the VHA Office of Community Care (Program Office), 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Denver, CO 80209.
Microsoft Azure Cloud customer service: 1-855-270-0615, Privacy Data Management:
CC Program Manager, VHA Office of Community Care, P.O. Box 469066, Denver, CO 80246. Telephone number 303-398-3479 (this is not a toll-free number).
Public Law 104-191; 5 U.S.C. 301; 38 U.S. Code § 1703; 45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 164; and 4 CFR 103.
The Community Care (CC) Provider Profile Management System (PPMS) is a comprehensive repository of information of VA community providers. PPMS collect and retain personally identifiable information on CC health care providers or CC providers. VA maintains a directory of medical providers internal VAMC medical providers and external CC providers which comprise the Community Care Provider Network.
Provider data is collected in two ways. The CC provider's date of birth, tax identification number and/or Social Security Number will be collected by CCN contractors and submitted electronically directly to PPMS via PPMS secure Integrated Web Services (IWS). A second method of collecting the date is by the Medical Support Assistants (MSA), Program Support Assistants (PSA), Registered Nurses (RN), and Social Workers (Geriatrics and Extended Care (GEC)) at the local VA facility. PPMS will provide increased timeliness and quality service to Veterans by improved tracking of provider relationships and validating data elements, as well as enterprise wide accessibility to a comprehensive list of provider information for referrals and scheduling CC services for Veterans.
These records may include information on:
(1) VA health care providers: This may include, but not limited to Dentists, Licensed Practical or Vocational Nurses, Registered Nurses, Audiologists, Physician Assistants, Physicians, Podiatrists.
(2) Non-VA health care providers (CC providers) who through a contractual agreement or other agreement may be providing health care services to VA patients.
The records may include VA providers and non-VA provider's information related to: name, status, provider type, provider name, national provider identifier/index, provider identifier type, status reason, quality ranking total score, quality ranking last updated, preferred provider, main phone, email, billing address, internal control number, geo code, language, license number, drug enforcement administration registration number, certification, tax identification/social security number and non-VA provider's date of birth.
Medical Providers or accredited representatives, and other third parties; private medical facilities and health care professionals; other Federal agencies; employees; contractors; VHA facilities and automated systems providing clinical and managerial support at VA health care facilities.
To the extent that records contained in the system include information protected by 45 CFR parts 160 and 164,
1. VA may disclose information from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual. VA must be able to provide information about individuals to adequately respond to inquiries from Members of Congress at the request of constituents who have sought their assistance.
2. VA may disclose any information or records to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) VA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk to individuals, VA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, or persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with VA efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
3. VA may disclose information in this system of records to DoJ, either on VA's initiative or in response to DoJ's request for the information, after either VA or DoJ determines that such information is relevant to DoJ's representation of the United States or any of its components in legal proceedings before a court or adjudicative body, provided that, in each case, the agency also determines prior to disclosure that release of the records to the DoJ is limited to circumstances where relevant and necessary to the litigation. VA may disclose records in this system of records in legal proceedings before a court or administrative body after determining that release of the records to the DoJ is limited to circumstances where relevant and necessary to the litigation.
4. VA may disclose information from this system of records to individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities or individuals with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform such services as VA may deem practicable for the purposes of laws administered by VA, in order for the contractor, subcontractor, public or private agency, or other entity or individual with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform services under the contract or agreement. This routine use includes disclosures by an individual or entity performing services for VA to any secondary entity or individual to perform an activity that is necessary for individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities or individuals with whom VA has a contract or agreement to provide the
5. VA may disclose information from this system to EEOC when requested in connection with investigations of alleged or possible discriminatory practices, examination of Federal affirmative employment programs, or other functions of the Commission as authorized by law or regulation. VA must be able to provide information to EEOC to assist it in fulfilling its duties to protect employees' rights, as required by statute and regulation.
6. VA may disclose information from this system to FLRA, including its General Counsel, information related to the establishment of jurisdiction, investigation, and resolution of allegations of unfair labor practices, or in connection with the resolution of exceptions to arbitration awards when a question of material fact is raised; for it to address matters properly before the Federal Services Impasses Panel, investigate representation petitions, and conduct or supervise representation elections. VA must be able to provide information to FLRA to comply with the statutory mandate under which it operates.
7. VA may disclose information from this system to the Merit Systems Protection Board, or the Office of the Special Counsel, when requested in connection with appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of rules and regulations, investigation of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices, and such other functions promulgated in 5 U.S.C. 1205 and 1206, or as authorized by law. VA must be able to provide information to MSPB to assist it in fulfilling its duties as required by statute and regulation.
8. VA may disclose information from this system to NARA and GSA in records management inspections conducted under title 44, U.S.C. NARA is responsible for archiving old records which are no longer actively used but may be appropriate for preservation, and for the physical maintenance of the Federal government's records. Disclosure to other Federal agencies may be made to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
9. VA may disclose relevant information to: (1) A Federal agency or CC institutions and providers when VA refers a patient for hospital or nursing home care or medical services, or authorizes a patient to obtain non-VA medical services and the information is needed by the Federal agency or non-VA institution or provider to perform the services; or (2) a Federal agency or to a non-VA hospital (Federal, state, and local public or private) or other medical installation having hospital facilities, organ banks, blood banks, or similar institutions, medical schools or clinics, or other groups or individuals that have contracted or agreed to provide medical services or share the use of medical resources under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 513, 7409, 8111, or 8153, when treatment is rendered by VA under the terms of such contract or agreement or the issuance of an authorization, and the information is needed for purposes of medical treatment and/or follow-up, determining entitlement to a benefit, or for VA to effect recovery of the costs of the medical care.
10. VA may disclose information in this system, to a Federal, state, or local agency maintaining civil or criminal violation records, or other pertinent information such as prior employment history, prior Federal employment background investigations, and/or personal or educational background in order for VA to obtain information relevant to the hiring, transfer or retention of an employee, the letting of a contract, the granting of a security clearance, or the issuance of a grant or other benefit.
11. VA may disclose information from this system of records to a Federal agency or the District of Columbia government, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee and the issuance of a security clearance as required by law, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision.
12. Any information in this system may be disclosed to a state or local agency, upon its official request, to the extent that it is relevant and necessary to that agency's decision on: The hiring, transfer or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance or continuance of a license, grant or other benefit by the agency; provided, that the name and address is provided first by the requesting state or local agency.
13. VA may disclose information concerning CC institutions and providers, including name, address, and social security or employer's taxpayer identification numbers, may be disclosed to the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, to report calendar year earnings of $600 or more for income tax reporting purposes.
14. VA may disclose information to the Department of the Treasury to facilitate payments to physicians, clinics, and pharmacies for reimbursement of services rendered, and to veterans for reimbursements of authorized expenses, or to collect, by set off or otherwise, debts owed the United States.
15. VA may disclose any relevant information from this system of records to attorneys, insurance companies, employers, third parties liable or potentially liable under health plan contracts, and to courts, boards, or commissions, but only to the extent necessary to aid VA in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims authorized under federal, state, or local laws, and regulations promulgated thereunder.
16. VA may disclose identifying information in this system, including name, address, social security number, and other information as is reasonably necessary to identify such individual, to the National Practitioner Data Bank at the time of hiring and/or clinical privileging/re-privileging of health care practitioners, and other times as deemed necessary by VA, in order for VA to obtain information relevant to a Department decision concerning the hiring, privileging/re-privileging, retention, or termination of the applicant or employee.
17. VA may disclose relevant information from this system of records to the National Practitioner Data Bank and/or State Licensing Board in the state(s) in which a practitioner is licensed, in which the VA facility is located, and/or in which an act or omission occurred upon which a medical malpractice claim was based when VA reports information concerning: (1) Any payment for the benefit of a physician, dentist, or other licensed health care practitioner which was made as the result of a settlement or judgment of a claim of medical malpractice, if an appropriate determination is made in accordance with Department policy that payment was related to substandard care, professional incompetence, or professional misconduct on the part of the individual; (2) a final decision
18. VA may disclose information from this system of records to a Federal agency or to a state or local government licensing board and/or to the Federation of State Medical Boards or a similar non-governmental entity which maintains records concerning individuals' employment histories or concerning the issuance, retention, or revocation of licenses, certifications, or registration necessary to practice an occupation, profession, or specialty, to inform a Federal agency or licensing boards or the appropriate non-governmental entities about the health care practices of a terminated, resigned, or retired health care employee whose professional health care activity so significantly failed to conform to generally accepted standards of professional medical practice as to raise reasonable concern for the health and safety of patients in the private sector or from another Federal agency. These records may also be disclosed as part of an ongoing computer matching program to accomplish these purposes.
19. For program review purposes and the seeking of accreditation and/or certification, VA may disclose health care information to survey teams of the Joint Commission, College of American Pathologists, American Association of Blood Banks, and similar national accreditation agencies or boards with which VA has a contract or agreement to conduct such reviews, but only to the extent that the information is necessary and relevant to the review.
20. VA may disclose information from this system to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when VA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
21. Disclosure to other Federal agencies may be made to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
22. VA may disclose information in this system which is relevant to a suspected or reasonably imminent violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, to a Federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order. VA may also disclose the names and addresses of providers to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto.
PPMS is a repository hosted on the Microsoft Azure Government (MAG) Cloud for provider records which are received electronically from the CCNs. The CCNs collect the provider data, including the date of birth and tax identification number/social security number, directly from the provider and stores it in a mechanism outside of VA. The records are electronically transmitted from the CCN to VA using secure integrated web services where they are stored in PPMS behind the VA firewall.
A second source of provider data are the CC Managers, MSA, PSA, RN, and Social Workers (GEC) at a local VA facility, who have taken the PPMS training, communicate directly with non-VA care providers and set up the provider in PPMS so they may be used in referrals for Veteran care. They will enter the data, including the date of birth and tax identification number/social security number, into PPMS which is behind the VA firewall. The date of birth and tax identification number/social security number information is a field in PPMS and is an attribute of the providers' profile level of data.
For users internal to VA, electronic records are retrieved via the PPMS Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Tool interface using the Provider's name or NPI number. Only approved VA employees whom are provisioned with PPMS access are authorized to access records. Records are retrieved by name, speciality, date of birth, tax identification number/social security number, or other assigned identifiers of the individuals on whom they are maintained.
Record Control Schedule (RCS) 10-1 item 1150 Office of Quality and Performance 1150.1. Health Care Provider Credentialing and Privileging Records. Electronic Files. Electronic version of information entered directly into the electronic credentialing and privileging record information system. Temporary; delete 30 years after the last episode of employment, appointment, contract, etc. from VA. (N1-015-10-07, Item 1)
1. PPMS is a customized Microsoft Dynamics 365 solution deployed on a FedRAMP Accredited Microsoft Dynamics CRM Online for Government (CRMOL) Cloud Platform. Microsoft Dynamics 365 includes several security features that provide PPMS administrators with the ability to implement a variety of administrative and technical safeguards which include:
—Account management using Microsoft Active Directory to centrally manage user accounts
—User authorization through two-factor, single sign-on, authentication
—Access control using role-based access control
—Data protection through encrypting of data-at-rest
—Auditing of user access and changes to PPMS data
Additional physical security safeguards are also implemented within the Microsoft Azure Data Center on which PPMS is deployed. Microsoft Azure maintains overall responsibility for the oversight of data center operations including physical security, site services (server deployments and break/fix work), infrastructure build-out, critical environment operations and maintenance, and facilities management. Data Center site security officers monitor the physical security of the facility 24 x 7.
2. The PPMS system is hosted in MAG Cloud infrastructure as a service cloud-computing environment that has been authorized at the high-impact level under the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP). The secure site-to-site
3. Access to PPMS is provisioned by a Service Now ticket routed to the PPMS Operations & Maintenance (O&M) team who grants access based on proven PPMS training completion by the individual requesting access. Access is monitored by O&M on a weekly basis due to limited number of licenses purchased for the CRM product.
An individual who seeks access to records maintained under his or her name in this system may submit a written request to VHA Office of Community Care, (Privacy Office) P.O. Box 469060, Denver, Colorado 80246-9060, or apply in person to the VHA Office of Community Care, 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 470, Denver, Colorado 80209.
(
Any individual who wishes to determine whether a record is being maintained in this system under his or her name or other personal identifier, or wants to determine the contents of such record, should submit a written request to VHA Office of Community Care, (Privacy Office), P.O. Box 469060, Denver, Colorado 80246-9060, or apply in person to the VHA Office of Community Care, 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 470, Denver, Colorado 80209.
None.
None.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of amendment to an existing System of Records.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs is amending the system of records currently entitled “Non-Health Data Analyses and Projections for VA Policy and Planning-VA (149VA008A)” as set forth in the
This amended system of record will be effective February 24, 2021.
Written comments may be submitted by: Mail or hand-delivery to the Director, Regulations Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; fax to (202) 273-9026 or email to
Office of Enterprise Integration (OEI), Ryan J. Stiegman, Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420; telephone (202) 461-5800.
Non-Health Data Analyses and Projections for VA Policy and Planning-VA (149VA008A) have been amended to reflect new organizational names, new mail addresses, and updated point of contact information. Additionally, information technology guidance regarding storage and transmission has been updated. Also, Veteran Affairs has made minor edits to the System Notice to standardize language. Finally, an obsolete web address has been updated to a more complete description of the duties of the Office of Enterprise.
The Record Source Categories has been amended to identify the organizational name to the Office of Enterprise Integration that replaces the Office of Policy and Planning.
The Storage section has been amended to identify the organizational name to the Office of Enterprise Integration. Directive 6513
The Policies and Practices for Retrievability of Records have been amended to identify the organizational name to the Office of Enterprise Integration.
The Policies and Practices for retention and disposal have been amended to identify the organizational name to the Office of Enterprise Integration.
The Physical, Procedural and Administrative Safeguard section has been amended to clarify that a panel of staff for data requests is fulfilled in a data review process. This section has also changed concurrence authority to the Executive Director level from the Assistant Secretary level. Finally, the Office of Policy and Planning has been replaced with the Office of Enterprise Integration.
The System Manager organizational title has been changed from the Assistant Secretary to the Executive Director (008B). The System Manager address has been amended from the Office of Policy and Planning to the successor organization of the Office of Enterprise Integration.
The Record Access section has been reformatted to VA standard and now includes two listed contacts for Veterans.
The Report of Intent to Amend a System of Records Notice and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate congressional committees and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677), December 12, 2000.
The Senior Agency Official for Privacy, 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. James P. Gfrerer, Assistant Secretary of Information and Technology and Chief Information Officer, approved this document on April 15, 2020 for publication.
“Non-Health Data Analyses and Projections for VA Policy and Planning-VA” (149VA008A)
Location for electronic records are placed in the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA's) secured servers housed at VA's Austin Information Technology Center, 1615 Woodward St, Austin, TX 78772. Records necessary for a contractor to perform a VA-approved contract with VA are located at the respective contractor's facility.
Title 38, United States Code, Section 527.
Non-health-related qualitative, quantitative, and actuarial analyses and projections to support policy analyses and recommendations to improve VA services for Veterans and their families. Analysis and review of policy and long-term planning issues affecting Veterans programs support legislative, regulatory and policy recommendations, decisions and initiatives. These activities are conducted for the Secretary, VA administrations and staff offices, special programs and projects within the Department (
1. Service members and Veterans who have applied for any non-health-related benefits under 38 U.S.C.
2. Veterans' spouse, surviving spouse, previous spouse, children, and parents who have applied for any non-health-related benefit under 38 U.S.C.
3. Beneficiaries of other Federal agencies or other governmental entities.
4. Individuals who have applied for any non-health-related benefits under 38 U.S.C., but who do not meet the requirements under 38 U.S.C. to receive such benefits.
The records may include personal identifiers (
Information from the Office of Enterprise Integration is obtained from VA's benefits-related databases, DoD, Federal and State agencies, and other organizations whose data is necessary to accomplish the purpose for this system of records.
1. Breach investigation. Upon suspicion or confirmation of compromised data in its system of records, Office of Enterprise Integration (OEI) may disclose any system records to law enforcement and security entities, as necessary, for the investigations of any data security, identity theft, and fraud issues.
2. Congress. VA may disclose information from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.
3. NARA & GSA. VA may disclose information from this system to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and General Services Administration (GSA) in records management inspections conducted under title 44, U.S.C.
4. Litigation. Any information in this system may be disclosed to the Department of Justice (DOJ), including U.S. Attorneys, upon its official request in order for VA to respond to pleadings, interrogatories, orders or inquiries from DOJ, and to supply DOJ with information to enable DOJ to represent the U.S. Government in any phase of litigation or in any case or controversy involving VA.
5. Research. Any system records may be disclosed to a Federal agency for the conduct of research and data analysis to perform a statutory purpose of that Federal agency upon the prior written request of that agency, provided that there is legal authority under all applicable confidentiality statutes and regulations to provide the data and OEI has determined prior to the disclosure that OEI data handling requirements are satisfied. OEI may disclose limited individual identification information to another Federal agency for the purpose of matching and acquiring information held by that organization for OEI to use for the purposes stated for this system of records.
6. Contracts and Agreements. VA may disclose information from this system of records to individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities or individuals with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform such services as VA may deem practicable for the purposes of laws administered by VA, in order for the contractor, subcontractor, public or private agency, or other entity or individual with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform services under the contract or agreement.
This routine use includes disclosures by an individual or entity performing services for VA to any secondary entity or individual to perform an activity that is necessary for individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities or individuals with whom VA has a contract or agreement to provide the service to VA.
This routine use, which also applies to agreements that do not qualify as contracts defined by Federal procurement laws and regulations, is consistent with OMB guidance in OMB Circular A-130, App. I, paragraph 5a(1)(b) that agencies promulgate routine uses to address disclosure of Privacy Act-protected information to contractors in order to perform the services contracts for the agency.
7. OMB. Any system records disclosure may be made to the OMB in order for them to perform their statutory responsibilities for evaluating Federal programs.
8. Outreach. Upon receipt of a written request, VA may disclose information to any state, tribe, county, or municipal agency for the purposes of outreach to a benefit under Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
9. Data breach response and remedial efforts. VA may, on its own initiative, disclose information from this system to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that the integrity or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of embarrassment or harm to the reputations of the record subjects, harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security, confidentiality, or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the potentially compromised information; and (3) the
This routine use permits disclosures by the Department to respond to a suspected or confirmed data breach, including the conduct of any risk analysis or provision of credit protection services as provided in 38 U.S.C. 5724.
10. Litigation. VA may disclose information from this system of records to the Department of Justice (DoJ), either on VA's initiative or in response to DoJ's request for the information, after either VA or DoJ determines that such information is relevant to DoJ's representation of the United States or any of its components in legal proceedings before a court or adjudicative body, provided that, in each case, the agency also determines prior to disclosure that release of the records to the DoJ is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records. VA, on its own initiative, may disclose records in this system of records in legal proceedings before a court or administrative body after determining that the disclosure of the records to the court or administrative body is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records.
To determine whether to disclose records under this routine use, VA will comply with the guidance promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget in a May 24, 1985, memorandum entitled “Privacy Act Guidance—Update,” currently posted at
11. Law Enforcement. VA may, on its own initiative, disclose information in this system, except the names and home addresses of veterans and their dependents, which is relevant to a suspected or reasonably imminent violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, to a Federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order. On its own initiative, VA may also disclose the names and addresses of veterans and their dependents to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto.
OEI's records are maintained electronically. Other electronic data is placed on VA's segregated servers which are housed at VA's Austin Information Technology Center, 615 Woodward St., Austin, TX 78772. All imported and exported OEI data is handled and housed via the provisions of signed data use agreements and VA data security policies, procedures, and directives. Requestors of OEI stored information within VA, or from external individuals, contractors, organizations, and/or agencies with whom VA has a contract or agreement, must provide an equivalent level of security protection and comply with current VA policies and procedures for storage and transmission as codified in VA directives such as but not limited to VA Handbook 6500 and Directive 6513.
OEI's records may be retrieved by using an individual's social security number, military service number, VA claim or file number, non-VA Federal benefit identifiers, and other personal identifiers.
In accordance with 36 CFR 1234.34,
If the Archivist has not approved disposition authority for any records covered by the system notice, the system manager will take immediate action to have the disposition of records in the system reviewed and paperwork initiated to obtain an approved records disposition authority in accordance with
All VA offices are protected from outside access by security personnel seven days a week. Entrances and exits are monitored by security cameras and protected by an alarm system. All VA staff and visitors are required to either have a VA-issued employment identification card or a temporary visitor identification badge. All work stations are secured during daytime and evening hours.
All data requests must be in writing, reviewed by a data review board, concurred on by the Executive Director for Data Governance and Analysis (DG&A) (008B), and released under the auspices of a signed data use agreement. File extracts provided for specific official uses will be limited to contain only the information fields needed for the analysis. Data used for analyses will have individual identifying characteristics removed or encrypted whenever possible. Unencrypted sensitive variables will only be used for analysis as a last resort.
Security complies with applicable Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Non-health information files containing unique identifiers such as social security numbers are encrypted to NIST-verified FIPS 140-2 standard or higher for storage, transport, or transmission. All files stored or transmitted on laptops, workstations, data storage devices and media are encrypted. Files are kept encrypted at all times except when data is in immediate use, per specifications by VA Office of Information and Technology. NIST publications were consulted in development of security for this system of records.
In the event of a contract or special project, VA may secure the services of contractors and/or subcontractors. In such cases, VA will maximize the use of encrypted data, when possible. Contractors and their subcontractors are required to maintain the same level of security as VA staff for non-health care information that has been disclosed to them. Unless explicitly authorized in writing by the VA, sensitive or protected data made available to the contractor and subcontractors shall not be divulged or made known in any manner to any person. All VA employees and contractors are mandated to complete annual cyber security and privacy training.
OEI's System Manager is Kshemendra Paul, Executive Director, Office of
An individual (or duly authorized representative of such individual) who seeks access or wishes to contest records maintained under his or her name or other personal identifier may write or call the individuals listed under the Notification Procedure below.
(See Record Access Procedures above.)
A Veteran who wishes to determine whether a record is being maintained by the Office of Enterprise Integration under his or her name or other personal identifier or wishes to determine the contents of such records should submit a written request or apply in person to: (1) Privacy Officer, or the Executive Director, Office of Enterprise Integration, Data Governance and Analytics (008B1), VA Central Office, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420. Inquiries need to include the individual's full name and social security number.
None.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announces its Educational and Career Counseling has been renamed Personalized Career Planning and Guidance (PCPG). The new name will enhance stakeholder recognition of counseling services provided under Chapter 36 and will support more effective program outreach and communication.
The changes were effective October 1, 2020.
Dean Greenlee, Chief, Personalized Career Planning and Guidance, Office of Transition and Economic Development, at 202-820-4051 or
Effective October 1, 2020, VA changed the name of its Chapter 36 benefit provided under 38 U.S.C. 3697A from Educational and Career Counseling to PCPG. PCPG provides Service members, Veterans and eligible dependents with enhanced career counseling, assessments, education planning and guidance resources that are unique to the needs of each participant to set and achieve personal, career and education goals.
To enhance program awareness and utilization of counseling services provided under Chapter 36, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) conducted human-centered design (HCD) research with Veterans and Service members to better understand their career and education needs and preferences related to the benefit. Through the HCD research, VBA identified program strengths, weaknesses, pain points and opportunities to better serve our eligible beneficiaries and better align Chapter 36 benefits with their values and ambitions.
The new name clarifies the type of benefits the program offers for eligible participants by emphasizing the right career and education counseling themes. This name change also is an important part of VBA's wider effort to support a more successful military-to-civilian transition. For more information about the PCPG program, please visit
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. Brooks D. Tucker, Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Performing the Delegable Duties of the Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on January 8, 2021 for publication.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of a Modified System of Records.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending the system of records currently entitled, “Patient Advocate Tracking System (PATS)-VA” (100VA10NS10) as set forth in the
Comments on this amended system of records must be received no later than February 24, 2021. If no public comment is received during the period allowed for comment or unless otherwise published in the
Written comments may be submitted through
Stephania Griffin, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Privacy Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420; telephone (704) 245-2492.
The System Name is being changed from “Patient Advocate Tracking System (PATS)-VA” to “Patient Advocate Tracking System Replacement (PATS-R)-VA”.
The System Number will be changed from 100VA10NS10 to 100VA10H to reflect the current organizational alignment.
The System Location is being amended to replace the PATS application from being located at Falling Waters to Martinsburg, West Virginia. Being removed from this section is, “A limited set of information is transferred from this central system in Falling Waters to Austin Automation Center. This limited set of information transferred to Austin Automation Center is utilized to run specific reports for central business office.” Being added to the section is that PATS Report of Contact (ROC) encounter data, entered by Patient Advocate users of the application, resides in the centralized PATS database at Austin Information Technology Center (AITC). This ROC data is transferred nightly from the PATS database at AITC to the PATS Reports database at Hines Information Technology Center (HITC) to be utilized to run ROC issue activity and trending reports by Patient Advocates for submission to their VA Medical Center (VAMC)/Integrated Health Care System Director, Service Chiefs and Customer Care leaders to assess service activity and provide feedback to identify trends for process improvement and achieve best practices.
The System Manager is being amended to replace Director, National Veteran Service and Advocacy Program with Executive Director, VHA Office of Patient Advocacy.
The Records Source Categories is being amended to replace 24VA136 with 24VA10A7 and to will now include Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) Records-VA (79VA10P2) and integrated systems.
The Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System has been amended to change Joint Commission for Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) to The Joint Commission (TJC) in Routine use #6.
Routine Use #18 has been amended by clarifying the language to state, “VA may disclose any information or records to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) VA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk to individuals, VA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, or persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with VA efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.”
Routine Use #19 is being added to state, “VA may disclose information from this system to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when VA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach. VA needs this routine use for the data breach response and remedial efforts with another Federal agency.”
New Routine Use #20 is being added to state, “VA may disclose relevant information in response to an inquiry from a member of the general public or third party about the named individual.” VA needs this routine use to permit disclosure to a Veteran when a complaint was submitted on his/her behalf or if a Congressional member submits the complaint but is not retrieved by his/her name or other unique identifier.
The Policies and Practices for Retention and Disposal of Records is being amended to replace Section XLV as authorized by the National Archives and Records Administration of the United States with Subject Identification Code (SIC) 1300.1, records are to be maintained for (7) years as authorized by the National Archives and Records Administration of the United States (N1-15-05-2, Item 1).
The Physical, Administrative and Procedural Safeguards is being amended to replace the PATS data center as being located in Falling Waters, WV, to being located in Martinsburg, West Virginia. Also, the Austin VA Data Processing Center is being replaced with the Austin Information Technology Center (AITC).
The Report of Intent to Amend a System of Records Notice and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677), December 12, 2000.
The Senior Agency Official for Privacy, 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. James P. Gfrerer, Assistant Secretary of Information and Technology and Chief Information Officer, approved this document on June 3, 2020 for publication.
“Patient Advocate Tracking System Replacement (PATS-R)-VA” (100VA10H)
Unclassified.
The PATS application is installed on a centrally located system in Martinsburg, West Virginia. The backup system in case of disaster recovery scenario is located at Hines Information Technology Center (HITC). The data entered into the application also resides on this central system. PATS Report of Contact (ROC) encounter data, entered by Patient Advocate users of the Application, resides in the centralized PATS database at Austin Information Technology Center (AITC).
Patient contacts, as recorded in ROCs, are coded using issue codes in order to facilitate tracking of these encounters to show where system improvements might be made. Aggregate data are maintained at the Network and Headquarters levels for the development of reports to make system wide changes. Records are collected and stored electronically for ease of retrieval by individual patient names and ease in compiling aggregate data. This ROC data is transferred nightly from the PATS database at AITC to the PATS Reports database at HITC to be utilized to run ROC issue activity and trending reports by Patient Advocates for submission to their VAMC/Integrated Health Care System Director, Service Chiefs and Customer Care leaders to assess service activity and provide feedback to identify trends for process improvement and achieve best practices.
Official responsible for policies and procedures; Executive Director, VHA
Title 38, United States Code, Chapter 73, section 7301(b).
The records may be used for such purposes as producing various management and patient follow-up reports; responding to patient and other inquiries; conducting health care-related studies, statistical analysis, and resource allocation planning; providing clinical and administrative support to patient medical care; audits, reviews and investigations conducted by the staff of the health care facility, Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN), VHA Headquarters, and VA's Office of Inspector General; law enforcement investigations; quality improvement reviews and investigations; personnel management and evaluation; employee ratings and performance evaluations; employee disciplinary or other adverse action, including discharge; advising health care professional licensing or monitoring bodies or similar entities or activities of VA and former VA health care personnel; accreditation of a facility by an entity such as the Joint Commission; and, notifying medical schools of medical students' performance. The information is integrated into the overall quality improvement plans and activities of the facility and used to improve services and communications, as well as, to track categories of complaints and the locations of complaints in order to improve the delivery of health care.
The records include information concerning individual patients, Veterans who have applied for care, their friends, their families, VA health care providers and members of the community. Members of the community include, but are not limited to, Congressional liaisons, Veterans Service Organizations and attorneys.
The records may include information maintained in paper records, and entered into a centralized web-based system, PATS, related to concerns and complaints regarding an individual's medical care, VA benefits, and/or encounters with health care facility personnel or other patients. The records include information that is compiled to review, investigate, and resolve these issues.
The patient, family members, and friends, employers or other third parties when otherwise unobtainable from the patient or family; employees, Patient Medical Records-VA (24VA10P2); Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) Records-VA (79VA10P2); private medical facilities and health care professionals; State and local agencies; other Federal agencies; VISNs, Veterans Benefits Administration automated record systems including Veterans and Beneficiaries Identification and Records Location Subsystem-VA (38VA23) and the Compensation, Pension, Education and Rehabilitation Records-VA (58VA21/22); PATS Legacy; and various automated and/or integrated systems providing clinical and managerial support at VA health care facilities.
To the extent that records contained in the system include information protected by 45 CFR parts 160 and 164,
1. The record of an individual who is covered by a system of records may be disclosed to a Member of Congress, or a staff person acting for the Member, when the Member or staff person requests the record on behalf of and at the written request of the individual.
2. Disclosure may be made to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the General Services Administration (GSA) for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of Title 44, Chapter 29 of the United States Code.
3. VA may disclose information from this system of records to the Department of Justice (DoJ), either on VA's initiative or in response to DoJ's request for the information, after either VA or DoJ determines that such information is relevant to DoJ's representation of the United States or any of its components in legal proceedings before a court or adjudicative body, provided that, in each case, the agency also determines prior to disclosure that release of the records to the DoJ is limited to circumstances where relevant and necessary to the litigation. VA may disclose records in this system of records in legal proceedings before a court or administrative body after determining that release of the records to the DoJ is limited to circumstances where relevant and necessary to the litigation.
4. Disclosure may be made to any facility regarding the hiring, performance, or other personnel-related information with which there is, or there is proposed to be, an affiliation, sharing agreement, contract, or similar arrangement for purposes of establishing, maintaining, or expanding any such relationship.
5. Disclosure may be made to a Federal agency or to a State or local government licensing board and/or to the Federation of State Medical Boards or a similar non-government entity which maintains records concerning individual employment histories or concerning the issuance, retention or revocation of licenses, certifications, or registration necessary to practice an occupation, profession or specialty, in order for the Department to obtain information relevant to a Department decision concerning the hiring, retention or termination of an employee boards or the appropriate nongovernment entities about the health care practices of employees who resigned, were terminated, or retired and whose professional health care activity so significantly failed to conform to generally accepted standards of professional medical practice as to raise reasonable concern for the health and safety of patients receiving medical care in the private sector or from another Federal agency. These records may also be disclosed as part of an ongoing computer-matching program to accomplish these purposes.
6. VA may disclose information for program review purposes and the seeking of accreditation and/or certification to survey teams of The Joint Commission (TJC), College of American Pathologists, American Association of Blood Banks, and similar national accreditation agencies or boards with which VA has a contract or agreement to conduct such reviews, but only to the extent that the information is necessary and relevant to the review.
7. Disclosure may be made to a State or local government entity or national certifying body which has the authority to make decisions concerning the issuance, retention or revocation of
8. Disclosure of information to the Federal Labor Relations Authority, including its General Counsel, when requested in connection with the investigation and resolution of allegations of unfair labor practices, in connection with the resolution of exceptions to arbitrator awards when a question of material fact is raised, in connection with matters before the Federal Service Impasses Panel, and to investigate representation petitions and conduct or supervise representation elections.
9. Disclosure of relevant information may be made to individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, etc., with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform such services as VA may deem practicable for the purposes of laws administered by VA, in order for the contractor or subcontractor to perform the services of the contract or agreement.
10. Disclosure may be made to a Federal agency, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.
11. Disclosure may be made to a Federal, State or local agency maintaining civil, criminal or other relevant information such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant to any agency decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other health, educational or welfare benefit.
12. Disclosure of information may be made to the next-of-kin and/or the person(s) with whom the patient has a meaningful relationship to the extent necessary and on a need-to-know basis consistent with good medical-ethical practices.
13. A record containing the name(s) and address(es) of present or former members of the armed services and/or their dependents may be disclosed under certain circumstances to any criminal or civil law enforcement governmental agency or instrumentality charged under applicable law with the protection of the public's health or safety, if a qualified representative of such organization, agency or instrumentality has made a standing written request that such name(s) or address(es) be provided for a purpose authorized by law; provided that the record(s) will not be used for any purpose other than that stated in the request and that organization, agency or instrumentality is aware of the penalty provision of 38 U.S.C. 5701(f).
14. VA may disclose any information in this system, except the names and home addresses of Veterans and their dependents, which is relevant to a suspected or reasonably imminent violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, to a Federal, State, local, tribal, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order. VA may also disclose the names and addresses of Veterans and their dependents to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto.
15. Disclosure may be made to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when requested in connection with investigations of alleged or possible discrimination practices, examination of Federal affirmative employment programs, compliance with the Uniform Guidelines of Employee Selection Procedures, or other functions of the Commission as authorized by law or regulation.
16. Disclosure may be made to officials of the Merit Systems Protection Board, including the Office of the Special Counsel, when requested in connection with appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of rules and regulations, investigation of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices, and such other functions, promulgated in 5 U.S.C. 1205-1206, or as may be authorized by law.
17. Disclosure to other Federal agencies may be made to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
18. VA may disclose any information or records to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) VA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk to individuals, VA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, or persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with VA efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
19. VA may disclose information from this system to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when VA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
20. VA may disclose relevant information in response to an inquiry from a member of the general public or third party about the named individual.
Records are maintained on paper, microfilm, magnetic tape, disk, or laser optical media. In most cases, copies of back-up computer files are maintained at off-site locations.
Records are retrieved by name, social security number or other assigned identifiers of the individuals on whom they are maintained.
Paper records and information stored on electronic storage media are maintained and disposed of in accordance with Records Control Schedule 10-1, Subject Identification Code (SIC) 1300.1, and are to be maintained for (7) years as authorized by the National Archives and Records Administration of the United States (N1-15-05-2, Item 1).
1. Access to VA working and storage areas are restricted to VA employees on
2. PATS is a web-based application installed on central computer systems in a data center at Martinsburg, West Virginia. The systems are maintained by authorized personnel. The end users access the application using the Web browser installed on their desktops. Additionally, access to computer rooms at health care facilities is generally limited by appropriate locking devices and restricted to authorized VA employees and vendor personnel. Automated Data Processing (ADP) peripheral devices are placed in secure areas (areas that are locked or have limited access) or are otherwise protected. Information in VistA may be accessed by authorized VA employees. Access to PATS application and data in the application is controlled at two levels; the systems recognize authorized employees by series of individually unique passwords/codes as a part of each data message, and the employees are limited to only that information in the application which is needed in the performance of their official duties. Information that is downloaded from PATS and maintained on personal computers are afforded similar storage and access protections as the data that is maintained in the original files. Access to information stored on automated storage media at other VA locations is controlled by individually unique passwords/codes.
3. Access to the AITC is generally restricted to Center employees, custodial personnel, Federal Protective Service and other security personnel. Access to computer rooms is restricted to authorized operational personnel through electronic locking devices. All other persons gaining access to computer rooms are escorted. Information stored in the computer may be accessed by authorized VA employees at remote locations including VA health care facilities, Information Systems Centers, VA Central Office, and Veteran Integrated Service Networks. Access is controlled by individually unique passwords/codes which must be changed periodically by the employee.
Individuals seeking information regarding access to and contesting of records in this system may write, call or visit the VA facility location where they are or were employed or made contact.
(See Record Access Procedures above.)
Individuals who wish to determine whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the VA facility location at which they are or were employed or made or have contact. Inquiries should include the person's full name, social security number, dates of employment, date(s) of contact, and return address.
None.
Last full publication provided in 74 FR 26766 dated June 3, 2009.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of Amendment to System of Records.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs is amending the system of records currently entitled “Veterans, Dependents of Veterans, and VA Beneficiary Survey Records (43VA008)” as set forth in the
This amended system of record will be effective February 24, 2021.
Written comments concerning the proposed amended system of records may be submitted by: Mail or hand-delivery to Director, Regulations Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; fax to (202) 273-9026; or email to
Office of Enterprise Integration (OEI), Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420; telephone (202) 461-5800.
In the Routine Use Section existing language has been updated using approved VA language. No new routine uses have been added. Update included disaggregating previous Routine Use Four (4) for research and separating out the provision for matching with other federal agencies. This federal matching provision is Routine Use Number Five (5). Other Routine Uses have been renumbered.
In the System Location Section, the office has been amended from the Data Development and Analysis Service to the Office of Data Governance and Analysis, (008B1). To incorporate other organizational changes the System Manager has been changed to the Executive Director for Data Governance and Analysis. Also, the name of the Austin storage location has changed from Austin Automation Center to Austin Information Technology Center. Finally, the last sentence in the System Location Section has been amended for clarity to “records necessary for a contractor to perform under a VA-approved contract are located at the respective contractor's facility.”
In the Authority for Maintenance of the System Section, Public Law 108—454 of 2004 has been removed. This Public Law authorized survey research for reporting requirements in Sections 211 and 805 that have expired.
In the Record Source Categories, language has been updated to include Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to the list of entities from which information may be obtained.
The Policies and Practices for Storage have been amended to include the complete name and address of the OEI server location to be used for data storage at the VA Austin Information Technology Center, 615 Woodward St., Austin, TX 78772. Further, VA has replaced rescinded Directive 6504 with its replacements,
In paragraph One (1) of the Physical, Procedural and Administrative Safeguards Section, the Health Insurance Portability and
In the Safeguards Section language has been updated. In paragraph Four (4) Directive 6504 has been replaced with
The Safeguards section has included additional updates. Specifically, in the Safeguards Section Paragraph Five (5) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been added to the possible agreements' types used to protect information. In addition, in Safeguards Section Paragraph Seven (7) update has been made to clarify and update the practice of using secure servers for data handling and analysis. Finally, in Section (8) language is updated and clarified to address access to record level files and related statistical software code as underlying survey data and resources.
In the System Manager(s) and Address(es) and Notification Procedure Sections, the office name has been amended from the Office of Policy and Planning, to the successor organization named the Office of Enterprise Integration (008). Titles of responsible System Notice officials in the new organization have been updated. Additionally, minor edits have been made to the System Notice for clarity, grammar, punctuation, and style. These changes are not substantive, and consequently, are not further discussed or enumerated.
The Report of Intent to Amend a System of Records Notice and an advance copy of the System Notice have been sent to the appropriate congressional committees and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677), December 12, 2000.
The Senior Agency Official for Privacy, 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. James P. Gfrerer, Assistant Secretary of Information and Technology and Chief Information Officer, approved this document on April 30, 2020 for publication.
Veterans, Dependents of Veterans, and VA Beneficiary Survey Records—VA.
Location for electronic records are stored on the Department of Veterans Affairs' secured servers housed at VA's Austin Information Technology Center, 1615 Woodward St., Austin, TX 78772. Records necessary for a contractor to perform under a VA-approved contract are located at the respective contractor's facility.
5 U.S.C. 306, 38 U.S.C. 527.
The purpose of this system of records is to collect data about the characteristics of America's Veteran, Servicemember, family member, and beneficiary populations through surveys that may be augmented with information from several existing VA systems of records and with information from non-VA sources to:
1. Conduct statistical studies and analyses relevant to VA programs and services;
2. Plan and improve services provided;
3. Decide about VA policies, programs, and services;
4. Study the VA's role in the use of VA and non-VA benefits and services; and
5. Study the relationship between the use of VA benefits and services and the use of related benefits and services from non-VA sources. These types of studies are needed for VA to forecast future demand for VA benefits and services.
(1) Veterans,
(2) Family members of Veterans,
(3) Military Servicemembers,
(4) Family members of Servicemembers, and
(5) Other VA beneficiaries.
The categories of records in the system may include:
1. Personal identifiers (
2. Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics (
3. Military service information (
4. Health status information (
5. Benefit and service information (
6. The records may also include information about Department of Defense (DoD) military personnel from DoD files (
7. The records may include information on Medicare beneficiaries from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and its predecessor, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), that are contained in databases (
To the extent that records contained in the system include information protected by Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 160 and 164 (
1. NARA & GSA. VA may disclose information from this system to the National Archives and Records
2. Contractors. VA may disclose information from this system of records to individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities or individuals with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform such services as VA may deem practicable for the purposes of laws administered by VA, in order for the contractor, subcontractor, public or private agency, or other entity or individual with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform services under the contract or agreement.
3. Law Enforcement. VA may, on its own initiative, disclose information in this system, except the names and home addresses of veterans and their dependents, which is relevant to a suspected or reasonably imminent violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, to a Federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order. On its own initiative, VA may also disclose the names and addresses of veterans and their dependents to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto.
4. Research. VA may disclose information from this system to a Federal agency for the conduct of research and data analysis to perform a statutory purpose of that agency upon the prior written request of that agency, provided that there is legal authority under all applicable confidentiality statutes and regulations to provide the data and VA has determined prior to the disclosure that VA data handling requirements are satisfied.
5. Federal Agencies for Computer Matches. VA may disclose limited individual identification information to another Federal agency from this system for the purpose of matching and acquiring information held by that agency for VA to use for the purposes stated for this system of records.
6. Congress. VA may disclose information from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.
7. Litigation. VA may disclose information from this system of records to the Department of Justice (DoJ), either on VA's initiative or in response to DoJ's request for the information, after either VA or DoJ determines that such information is relevant to DoJ's representation of the United States or any of its components in legal proceedings before a court or adjudicative body, provided that, in each case, the agency also determines prior to disclosure that release of the records to the DoJ is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records. VA, on its own initiative, may disclose records in this system of records in legal proceedings before a court or administrative body after determining that the disclosure of the records to the court or administrative body is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records.
To determine whether to disclose records under this routine use, VA will comply with the guidance promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget in a May 24, 1985, memorandum entitled “Privacy Act Guidance—Update,” currently posted at
8. Data breach response and remedial efforts. VA may, on its own initiative, disclose information from this system to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that the integrity or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of embarrassment or harm to the reputations of the record subjects, harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security, confidentiality, or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the potentially compromised information; and (3) the disclosure is to agencies, entities, or persons whom VA determines are reasonably necessary to assist or carry out the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
VA sensitive information that includes health information is stored on a segregated secure server. For data match purposes and data storage, all databases are placed on secured servers located at the following location: VA's Austin Information Technology Center, 615 Woodward St., Austin, TX 78772. Information that resides on a segregated server is kept inside a restricted network area behind cipher-locked doors with limited access. Requestors of stored health and non-health information within VA, or from external individuals, contractors, organizations, and/or agencies with whom VA has a contract or agreement, must provide an equivalent level of security protection and comply with current VA policies and procedures for storage and transmission as codified in VA directives such as but not limited to
Health care information is kept separate from individual identifiers for survey data. Unique codes are assigned to individual health information. A codebook for decoding is stored on a secure server for name, social security number or other assigned identifiers of the individuals on whom they are maintained. These survey records may be retrieved by name, address, social security number, date of birth, military service number, claim or file number, DoD identification numbers, or other personal identifiers.
Records are maintained and disposed of in accordance with the records disposition authority approved by the Archivist of the United States and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and published in Agency Records Control Schedules. If the Archivist has not approved disposition authority for any records covered by the system notice, the System Manager will take immediate action to have the disposition of records in the system reviewed in accordance
1. This list of safeguards furnished in this System of Record is not an exclusive list of measures that have been, or will be taken to protect individually-identifiable information. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provides guidelines for protecting health information that will be followed by adopting health care industry best practices and the reporting of breaches in order to provide adequate safeguards. Further, VA policy directives that specify the standards that will be applied to protect health information will be reviewed by VA staff and contractors through mandatory data privacy and security training.
2. Access to data servers and storage areas is restricted to authorized VA employee or contract staffs who are cleared to work by the Office of Operations, Security, and Preparedness. Access to the OEI data servers used for storage is restricted and protected by access codes. Health information file areas are locked after normal duty hours. VA facilities are protected from outside access by the Federal Protective Service and/or other security personnel.
3. Access to health information provided by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) pursuant to a Business Associate Agreement (BAA) is restricted to those OEI employees and contractors who have a business need for the information in the performance of their official duties. As a general rule, full sets of health care information are not provided for use unless authorized by the System Manager. File extracts provided for specific official uses will be limited to contain only the information fields needed for the analysis. Data used for analyses will have individual identifying characteristics removed whenever possible.
4. Security complies with applicable Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Health and non-health information files containing unique identifiers such as social security numbers are encrypted to NIST-verified FIPS 140-2 standard or higher for storage, transport, or transmission. Any health information files transmitted on laptops, workstations, data storage devices or media are encrypted. Record level files are kept encrypted at all times except when data is in immediate use. These methods are applied in accordance with HIPAA regulations [45 CFR 164.514] and
5. Contractors and their subcontractors are required to maintain the same level of security as VA staff for health care information that has been disclosed to them. Any data disclosed to a contractor, or use of a subcontractor to perform authorized analyses, requires use of Data Use Agreements (DUAs) or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Non-Disclosure Statements and Business Associates Agreement (BAA) to protect health information. Unless explicitly authorized in writing by the VA, sensitive or protected data made available to the contractor and subcontractors shall not be divulged or made known in any manner to any person. Other Federal or state agencies requesting health care information need to provide agreements to protect data.
6. The OEI work area is accessed for business-only needs. A limited amount of data is stored in a combination-protected safe which is secured inside a limited access room. Direct access to the safe is controlled by select individuals who possess background security clearances. Only a few employees with strict business needs or “need-to-know” access and completed background checks will ever handle the data once it is removed from the safe for data match purposes.
7. Data matches, analysis, and storage are conducted primarily on secured servers located in Austin, TX, which are housed in a restricted access network area with appropriate locking devices. Access to such records are controlled by three measures: The application of a VA security identification card coded with special permissions network area's key pad; the proper input of a series of individually-unique passwords/codes by a recognized user; and the entrance of those select individuals for the performance of their official information technology-related duties.
8. Access to Automated Data Processing (ADP) files, record level files and related statistical software code is controlled by using an individually-unique pin number or password entered in combination with a Personally Identifiable Variable (PIV) card or other information.
9. Access to VA facilities where identification codes, passwords, security profiles and information on possible security violations are maintained is controlled at all hours by the Federal Protective Service, VA, or other security personnel and security access control devices.
10. Public use files prepared for purposes of research and analysis are purged of personal identifiers.
11. Paper records, when they exist, are maintained in a locked room at the Washington National Records Center or at designated locations identified in this System Notice. The Federal Protective Service protects paper records from unauthorized access.
OEI's System Manager is Kshemendra Paul, Executive Director, Office of Enterprise Integration, Data Governance and Analytics (008B1), VA Central Office, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420, 202-461-1052,
An individual who wants to determine whether the Director, National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics (008B1) is maintaining a record under the individual's name or other personal identifier, or wants to determine the content of such records must submit a written request to the Director, National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics, Office of Enterprise Integration, (008B1), VA Central Office, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420. The individual seeking this information must prove his or her identity and provide the name of the survey in question, approximate date of the survey, social security number, full name, and date of birth, telephone number, and return address. All inquiries must reasonably identify the health care information involved and the approximate date that medical care was provided.
(See Records Access Procedures.)
A Veteran who wishes to determine whether a record is being maintained by the Office of Enterprise Integration under his or her name or other personal identifier or wishes to determine the contents of such records should submit a written request or apply in person to: (1) Executive Director, Office of Enterprise Integration, (008B), VA Central Office, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420. (2) Director, National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics, Office of Enterprise Integration, (008B1), VA Central Office, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420. Inquiries should include the individual's full name and social security number.
None.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of a Modified System of Records.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending the system of records entitled, “The Revenue Program-Billing and Collections Records-VA” (114VA10D). VA is amending the system of records by revising the System Number; System Location; Purpose of the System; Categories of Individuals Covered by the System; Record Source Categories; Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System; Policies and Practices for Storage of Records; and Physical, Procedural and Administrative Safeguards. VA is republishing the system notice in its entirety.
Comments on this amended system of records must be received no later than February 24, 2021. If no public comment is received during the period allowed for comment or unless otherwise published in the
Written comments may be submitted through
Stephania Griffin, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Privacy Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420; telephone (704) 245-2492 (Note: not a toll-free number).
The System Number is being updated from 114VA10D to 114VA10 to reflect the current VHA organizational routing symbol.
The System Location is being updated to reflect electronic records being located at contractor facilities, such as the Cerner Technology Centers (CTC): Primary Data Center in Kansas City, MO, and Continuity of Operations/Disaster Recovery (COOP/DR) Data Center in Lees Summit, MO. Amazon Web Services, LLC, 13461 Sunrise Valley Drive, Herndon, VA 20171-3283.
The Purpose of the System is being amended to remove participation in pilot test of NPI enumeration system by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). This section will add, CMS National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES).
Categories of Individuals Covered by the System is being amended to add “including those receiving or eligible to receive VA health care” to item 2. Also, item 10, Caregivers, is being added.
The Record Source Categories is being amended to add Social Security Administration and Patient Medical Records-VA (24VA10A7). Also, 77VA10A4 is being changed to 77VA10E2E and 79VA10P2 is being changed to 79VA10A7.
The Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System is amending Routine Use 10 to remove universal personal identification number.
Routine Use 13 is being amended to include 7332-protected information.
Routine Use 17 is being amended to replace “CMS to test the enumeration system for the NPI and once the system is operational” with National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES).
Routine Use 20 has been amended by removing the language which states, this routine use permits disclosures by VA to respond to a suspected or confirmed data breach, including the conduct of any risk analysis or provision of credit protection services as provided in 38 U.S.C. 5724, as the terms are defined in 38 U.S.C. 5727.
b.
The language in Routine Use 21 is being amended. It previously stated that disclosure of the records to the Department of Justice (DoJ) is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records. VA may disclose records in this system of records in legal proceedings before a court or administrative body after determining that the disclosure of the records to the court or administrative body is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records. This routine use will now state that release of the records to the DoJ is limited to circumstances where relevant and necessary to the litigation. VA may disclose records in this system of records in legal proceedings before a court or administrative body after determining that release of the records to the court or administrative body is limited to circumstances where relevant and necessary to the litigation.
Policies and Practices for Storage of Records is being amended to include Records within this system is also hosted in Amazon Web Services (AWS) Government Cloud (GovCloud) infrastructure as a service cloud-computing environment that has been authorized at the high-impact level under the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP).
The Physical, Procedural and Administrative Safeguards section is being amended to add, “Access to Cerner Technology Centers is generally restricted to Cerner employees, contractors or associates with a Cerner issued ID badge and other security
The Report of Intent to Amend a System of Records Notice and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677), December 12, 2000.
The Senior Agency Official for Privacy, 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. James P. Gfrerer, Assistant Secretary of Information and Technology and Chief Information Officer, approved this document on July 24, 2020 for publication.
The Revenue Program-Billing and Collections Records-VA (114VA10)
Unclassified.
Records are maintained at each Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care facility. In most cases, backup computer tape information is stored at off-site locations. Address locations for VA facilities are listed in VA Appendix 1 of the biennial publication of VA Privacy Act Issuances. In addition, information from these records or copies of records may be maintained at, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC; the VA Austin Automation Center (AAC), Austin, Texas; Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) Offices; VA Allocation Resource Center (ARC), Boston, Massachusetts; and contractor facilities, such as the Cerner Technology Centers (CTC); Primary Data Center in Kansas City, Missouri; and Continuity of Operations/Disaster Recovery (COOP/DR) Data Center in Lees Summit, Missouri. Records are also maintained at Amazon Web Services, LLC, 13461 Sunrise Valley Drive, Herndon, VA 20171-3283.
The official responsible for policies and procedures is the Deputy Under Secretary for Health, Office for Community Care (10D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420. The local officials responsible for maintaining the system are the Director of the facility where the individual is or was associated.
Title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.), sections 1710 and 1729.
The records and information are used for the billing of, and collections from a third-party payer, including insurance companies, other Federal agencies, or foreign governments, for medical care or services received by a Veteran for a non-service-connected condition or from a first party Veteran required to make copayments. The records and information are also used for the billing of and collections from other Federal agencies for medical care or services received by an eligible beneficiary. The data may be used to identify and/or verify insurance coverage of a Veteran or Veteran's spouse prior to submitting claims for medical care or services. The data may be used to support appeals for non-reimbursement of claims for medical care or services provided to a Veteran. Data may be used in the Payer Compliance Tool to determine if third party payer information meets the requirement to reimburse VA. The data may be used to enroll health care providers with health plans and VA's health care clearinghouse in order to electronically file third party claims. For the purposes of health care billing and payment activities to and from third party payers, VA will disclose information in accordance with the legislatively-mandated transaction standard and code sets promulgated by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The data may be used to make application for a National Provider Identifier (NPI), as required by the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Rule on Standard Unique Health Identifier for Healthcare Providers, 45 CFR part 162, for all health care professionals providing examination or treatment within VA health care facilities, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES). The records and information may be used for statistical analyses to produce various management, tracking and follow-up reports, to track and trend the reimbursement practices of insurance carriers, and to track billing and collection information. The data may be used to support, or in anticipation of supporting, reimbursement claims from community health care providers or their agents. The data may be used to support, or in anticipation of supporting, reimbursement claims from academic affiliates with which VA maintains a business relationship.
1. Veterans who have applied for health care services under Title 38, United States Code, Chapter 17, and in certain cases members of their immediate families.
2. Beneficiaries of other Federal agencies, including those receiving or eligible to receive VA health care.
3. Individuals examined or treated under contract or resource sharing agreements.
4. Individuals examined or treated for research or donor purposes.
5. Individuals who have applied for Title 38 benefits, but who do not meet the requirements under Title 38 to receive such benefits.
6. Individuals who were provided medical care under emergency conditions for humanitarian reasons.
7. Pensioned members of allied forces (Allied Beneficiaries) who are provided health care services under Title 38, United States Code, Chapter 1.
8. Health care professionals providing examination or treatment to any individuals within VA health care facilities.
9. Health care professionals providing examination or treatment to individuals under contract or resource sharing agreements or Community Care programs, such as Choice.
10. Caregivers.
The records may include information related to:
1. The Social Security number and insurance policy number of the Veteran and/or Veteran's spouse. The record may include other identifying information (
2. Insurance company information specific to coverage of the Veteran and/
3. Diagnostic codes (ICD-10-CM, CPT- 4, and any other coding system) pertaining to the individual's medical, surgical, psychiatric, dental and/or psychological examination or treatment.
4. Charges claimed to a third-party payer, including insurance companies, other Federal agencies, or foreign governments, based on treatment/services provided to the patient.
5. Charges billed to those Veterans who are required to meet co-payment obligations for treatment/services rendered by VA.
6. The name, Social Security number, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) number, National Provider Identifier (NPI) and credentials including provider's degree, licensure, certification, registration or occupation of health care providers.
7. Records of charges related to patient care that are created in anticipation of litigation in which the United States is a party or has an interest in the litigation or potential litigation, including a third-party tortfeasor, workers compensation, or no-fault automobile insurance cases. Such records are not subject to disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5).
The patient, family members or guardian, and friends, employers or other third parties when otherwise unobtainable from the patient or family; health insurance carriers; private medical facilities and health care professionals; state and local agencies; other Federal agencies; Social Security Administration; VA regional offices; Veterans Benefits Administration automated record systems, including Veterans and Beneficiaries Identification and Records Location Subsystem-VA (38VA23) and the Compensation, Pension, Education and Rehabilitation Records-VA (58VA21/22/28); and various automated systems providing clinical and facilities to include Health Care Provider Credentialing and Privileging Records-VA (77VA10E2E); Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA)-VA (79VA10A7) and Patient Medical Records-VA (24VA10A7).
To the extent that records contained in the system include information protected by 45 CFR parts 160 and 164,
1. VA may disclose information, except for the names and home address of Veterans and their dependents, to a Federal, State, local, tribal or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto. VA may also disclose the names and addresses of Veterans and their dependents to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto.
2. Disclosure may be made to an agency in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch, or the District of Columbia government in response to its request or at the initiation of VA, in connection with the letting of a contract, other benefits by the requesting agency, or the lawful statutory, administrative, or investigative purpose of the agency to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision. However, names and addresses of Veterans and their dependents will be released only to Federal entities.
3. Disclosure may be made to a Congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the Congressional office made at the request of that individual.
4. Disclosure may be made to National Archives and Records Administration in records management inspections conducted under authority of Title 44 U.S.C.
5. Disclosure may be made to the Department of Justice and United States attorneys in defense or prosecution of litigation involving the United States, and to Federal agencies upon their request in connection with review of administrative tort claims filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2672.
6. Any information in this system of records, including personal information obtained from other Federal agencies through computer-matching programs, may be disclosed for the purposes identified below to any third party, except consumer reporting agencies, in connection with any proceeding for the collection of an amount owed to the United States by virtue of a person's participation in any benefit program administered by VA. Information may be disclosed under this routine use only to the extent that it is reasonably necessary for the following purposes: (a) To assist VA in collection of Title 38 overpayments, overdue indebtedness, and/or costs of services provided individuals not entitled to such services; and (b) to initiate civil or criminal legal actions for collecting amounts owed to the United States and/or for prosecuting individuals who willfully or fraudulently obtain Title 38 benefits without entitlement. This disclosure is consistent with 38 U.S.C. 5701(b)(6).
7. The name and address of a Veteran, other information as is reasonably necessary to identify such Veteran, including personal information obtained from other Federal agencies through computer matching programs, and any information concerning the Veteran's indebtedness to the United States by virtue of the person's participation in a benefits program administered by VA may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency for purposes of assisting in the collection of such indebtedness, provided that the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 5701(g)(4) have been met.
8. The name of a Veteran, or other beneficiary, other information as is reasonably necessary to identify such individual, and any information concerning the individual's indebtedness by virtue of a person's participation in a medical care and treatment program administered by VA, may be disclosed to the Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, for the collection of indebtedness arising from such program by the withholding of all or a portion of the person's Federal income tax refund. These records may be disclosed as part of a computer-matching program to accomplish these purposes.
9. Relevant information (excluding medical treatment information related to drug or alcohol abuse, infection with the human immunodeficiency virus or sickle cell anemia) may be disclosed to HHS for the purpose of identifying improper duplicate payments made by Medicare fiscal intermediaries where VA was authorized and was responsible for payment for medical services obtained at community health care facilities.
10. The Social Security number, NPI, credentials, and other identifying information of a health care provider may be disclosed to a third party where
11. Relevant information may be disclosed to individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, etc., with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform such services as VA may deem practical for the purposes of laws administered by VA, in order for the contractor and/or subcontractor to perform the services of the contract or agreement.
12. Relevant information from this system of records may be disclosed to the National Practitioner Data Bank and/or State Licensing Board in the State(s) in which a practitioner is licensed, in which the VA facility is located, and/or in which an act or omission occurred upon which a medical malpractice claim was based when VA reports information concerning: (a) Any payment for the benefit of a physician, dentist, or other licensed health care practitioner which was made as the result of a settlement or judgment of a claim of medical malpractice if an appropriate determination is made in accordance with agency policy that payment was related to substandard care, professional incompetence or professional misconduct on the part of the individual; (b) a final decision which relates to possible incompetence or improper professional conduct that adversely affects the clinical privileges of a physician, dentist or other licensed health care practitioner for a period longer than 30 days; or (c) the acceptance of the surrender of clinical privileges, or any restriction of such privileges by a physician, dentist, or other licensed health care practitioner either while under investigation by the health care entity relating to possible incompetence or improper professional conduct, or in return for not conducting such an investigation or proceeding. These records may also be disclosed as part of a computer-matching program to accomplish these purposes.
13. Relevant information, including 7332-protected information, may be disclosed from this system of records to any third party or Federal agency such as the Department of Defense, Office of Personnel Management, HHS and government-wide third-party insurers responsible for payment of the cost of medical care for the identified patients, in order for VA to seek recovery of the medical care costs. These records may also be disclosed as part of a computer matching program to accomplish these purposes.
14. Relevant information, including the nature and amount of a financial obligation, may be disclosed in order to assist VA in the collection of unpaid financial obligations owed VA, to a debtor's employing agency or commanding officer, so that the debtor employee may be counseled by his or her Federal employer or commanding officer. This purpose is consistent with 5 U.S.C. 5514, 4 CFR 102.5, and section 206 of Executive Order 11222 of May 8, 1965 (30 FR 6469).
15. Identifying information such as name, address, Social Security number and other information as is reasonably necessary to identify such individual, may be disclosed to the National Practitioner Data Bank at the time of hiring and/or clinical privileging/re-privileging of health care practitioners, and at other times as deemed necessary by VA, in order for VA to obtain information relevant to a Department decision concerning the hiring, privileging/re-privileging, retention or termination of the applicant or employee.
16. Disclosure of individually identifiable health information including billing information for the payment of care may be made by appropriate VA personnel, to the extent necessary and on a need-to-know basis consistent with good medical-ethical practices, to family members and/or the person(s) with whom the patient has a meaningful relationship.
17. Provider identifying information may be disclosed from this system of records to the NPPES, to obtain an NPI for any eligible health care professional providing examination or treatment with VA health care facilities.
18. Relevant information may be disclosed to community health care providers or their agents where the community health care provider provides health care treatment to Veterans and requires the Department provide that information in order for that entity or its agent to submit, or in anticipation of submission of, a health care reimbursement claim or, in the case of the NPI, for permissible purposes specified in the HIPAA legislation (45 CFR part 162).
19. Relevant information may be disclosed to an academic affiliate with which VA maintains a business relationship, where the VA provider also maintains an appointment to that academic affiliate's medical staff. This disclosure is to support, or in anticipation of supporting, a health care reimbursement claim(s) or, in the case of the NPI, for permissible purposes specified in the HIPAA legislation (45 CFR part 162).
20. VA may disclose any information or records to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) VA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk to individuals, VA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, or persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with VA efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
21. VA may disclose information in this system of records to the Department of Justice (DoJ), either on VA's initiative or in response to DoJ's request for the information, after either VA or DoJ determines that such information is relevant to DoJ's representation of the United States or any of its components in legal proceedings before a court or adjudicative body, provided that, in each case, the agency also determines prior to disclosure that release of the records to the DoJ is limited to circumstances where relevant and necessary to the litigation. VA may disclose records in this system of records in legal proceedings before a court or administrative body after determining that release of the records to the court or administrative body is limited to circumstances where relevant and necessary to the litigation.
22. Disclosure to other Federal agencies may be made to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
23. VA may disclose information from this system to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when VA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
24. VA may disclose relevant information to attorneys, insurance companies, employers, third parties liable or potentially liable under health plan contracts, and courts, boards, or commissions, to the extent necessary to aid VA in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims authorized under Federal, State, or local laws, and regulations promulgated thereunder.
25. VA may disclose relevant information to health plans, quality
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12), VA may disclose records from this system to consumer reporting agencies as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) or the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)).
Records are maintained on paper or electronic media. Records within this system is also hosted in Amazon Web Services (AWS) Government Cloud (GovCloud) infrastructure as a service cloud-computing environment that has been authorized at the high-impact level under the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP).
Records are retrieved by name, Social Security number or other assigned identifier of the individuals on whom they are maintained, or by specific bill number assigned to the claim of the individuals on whom they are maintained.
Follow the requirement of RCS 10-1 Chapter 4 Item 4000.1 a & b. 4000.1 Financial transaction records related to procuring goods and services, paying bills, collecting debts, and accounting.
a. Official record held in the office of record.
Temporary; destroy six (6) years after final payment or cancellation, but longer retention is authorized if required for business use. (GRS 1.1, Item 010) (DAA-GRS-2016-0001-0002)
b. All Other copies
Temporary; destroy or delete when six (6) years old, but longer retention is authorized if required for business use. (GRS 1.1 item 013) (DAA-GRS-2016-0001-0002)
1. Access to VA working and storage areas is restricted to VA employees on a “need-to-know” basis; strict control measures are enforced to ensure that disclosure to these individuals is also based on this same principle. Generally, VA file areas are locked after normal duty hours and the facilities are protected from outside access by the Federal Protective Service or other security personnel.
2. Information in VistA may only be accessed by authorized VA personnel. Access to file information is controlled at two levels. The systems recognize authorized personnel by series of individually unique passwords/codes as a part of each data message, and personnel are limited to only that information in the file, which is needed in the performance of their official duties. Information that is downloaded from VistA and maintained on personal computers is afforded similar storage and access protections as the data that is maintained in the original files. Access to information stored on automated storage media at other VA locations is controlled by individually unique passwords/codes. Access by Office of Inspector General (OIG) staff conducting an audit, investigation, or inspection at the health care facility, or an OIG office location remote from the health care facility, is controlled in the same manner.
3. Information downloaded from VistA and maintained by the OIG headquarters and Field Offices on automated storage media is secured in storage areas for facilities to which only OIG staff have access. Paper documents are similarly secured. Access to paper documents and information on automated storage media is limited to OIG employees who have a need for the information in the performance of their official duties. Access to information stored on automated storage media is controlled by individually unique passwords/codes.
4. Access to the VA Austin Information Technology Center (AITC) is generally restricted to AITC employees, custodial personnel, Federal Protective Service and other security personnel. Access to computer rooms is restricted to authorized operational personnel through electronic locking devices. All other persons gaining access to computer rooms are escorted. Information stored in the AITC databases may be accessed.
5. Access to records maintained at the VA Allocation Resource Center and the VISN Offices is restricted to VA employees who have a need for the information in the performance of their official duties. Access to information stored in electronic format is controlled by individually unique passwords/codes. Records are maintained in manned rooms during working hours. The facilities are protected from outside access during non-working hours by the Federal Protective Service or other security personnel.
6. Access to Cerner Technology Centers is generally restricted to Cerner employees, contractors or associates with a Cerner issued ID badge and other security personnel cleared for access to the data center. Access to computer rooms housing Federal data, hence Federal enclave, is restricted to persons Federally cleared for Federal enclave access through electronic badge entry devices. All other persons, such as custodians, gaining access to Federal enclave are escorted.
Individuals seeking information regarding access to and contesting of records in this system may write, call or visit the VA facility location where they were treated.
(See Record Access Procedures above.)
An individual who wishes to determine whether a record is being maintained in this system under his or her name or other personal identifier, or wants to determine the contents of such record, should submit a written request or apply in person to the last VA health care facility where care was rendered. Addresses of VA health care facilities may be found in VA Appendix 1 of the biennial publication of VA Privacy Act Issuances. All inquiries must reasonably identify the place and approximate date that medical care was provided. Inquiries should include the patient's full name, Social Security number, insurance company information, policyholder and policy identification number as well as a return address.
None.
Last full publication provided in 83 FR 11303.
(1) Clause 2 of Proclamation 9704, as amended, is further amended in the second sentence by deleting “and” before “(g)” and inserting before the period at the end: “, and (h) on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on February 3, 2021, from all countries except Argentina, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and the United Arab Emirates.”.
(2) Clauses 1 and 4 of Proclamation 9776 of August 29, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States) are amended by replacing, in each instance, “subheadings 9903.85.05 and 9903.85.06” with “subheadings 9903.85.05 through 9903.85.08”.
(3) The “Article Description” for subheading 9903.85.01 of the HTSUS is amended by replacing “of Argentina, of Australia, of Canada, of Mexico” with “of Argentina, of Australia, of Canada, of Mexico, of the United Arab Emirates”.
(4) The superior text to subheading 9903.85.11 of the HTSUS is amended by replacing “of Argentina” with “of Argentina and of the United Arab Emirates”, and the “Article Description” for subheading 9903.85.11 of the HTSUS is amended by replacing “9903.85.05 and 9903.85.06” with “9903.85.05 through 9903.85.08”.
(5) In order to implement quantitative limitations on aluminum article imports from the United Arab Emirates, subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is amended as provided for in Part A of the Annex to this proclamation. For purposes of administering these quantitative limitations, the annual aggregate limits set out in Part B of the Annex to this proclamation
(6) The modifications made by clauses 1 through 5 of this proclamation and the Annex to this proclamation shall be effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on February 3, 2021, and shall continue in effect, unless such actions are expressly reduced, modified, or terminated.
(7) Any imports of aluminum articles from the United Arab Emirates that were admitted into a U.S. foreign trade zone under “privileged foreign status” as defined in 19 CFR 146.41, prior to 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on February 3, 2021, shall not be subject, upon entry for consumption made on or after that date and time, to the additional 10 percent ad valorem rate of duty imposed by Proclamation 9704, as amended, and shall be subject to the quantitative limitations established in this proclamation.
(8) Any provision of previous proclamations and Executive Orders that is inconsistent with the actions taken in this proclamation is superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.
(a) A detailed assessment of the conditions at the Air Base between October 1, 2001, and December 31, 2005, including identification of any toxic substances contaminating the Air Base during such period, the exact locations of the toxic substances, the time frames of exposure to the toxic substances, the service members exposed to the toxic substances, and the circumstances of such exposure.
(b) A rigorous epidemiological study of any health consequences for members of the Armed Forces deployed to the Air Base between October 1, 2001, and December 31, 2005. This study shall be of equivalent rigor to studies used by the Department of Veterans Affairs to make determinations regarding diseases subject to presumptive service connections.
(c) An assessment of any causal link between exposure to any toxic substances identified in subsection (a) of this section and any health consequences studied under subsection (b) of this section.
(b) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(a) set forth the minimum standards that United States IaaS providers must adopt to verify the identity of a foreign person in connection with the opening of an Account or the maintenance of an existing Account, including:
(A) the identity of such foreign person and the person's information, including name, national identification number, and address;
(B) means and source of payment (including any associated financial institution and other identifiers such as credit card number, account number, customer identifier, transaction identifiers, or virtual currency wallet or wallet address identifier);
(C) electronic mail address and telephonic contact information, used to verify a foreign person's identity; and
(D) internet Protocol addresses used for access or administration and the date and time of each such access or administrative action, related to ongoing verification of such foreign person's ownership of such an Account; and
(b) take into consideration the type of Account maintained by United States IaaS providers, methods of opening an Account, and types of identifying information available to accomplish the objectives of identifying foreign malicious cyber actors using any such products and avoiding the imposition of an undue burden on such providers; and
(c) permit the Secretary, in accordance with such standards and procedures as the Secretary may delineate and in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, to exempt any United States IaaS provider, or any specific type of Account or lessee, from the requirements of any regulation issued pursuant to this section. Such standards and procedures may include a finding by the Secretary that a provider, Account, or lessee complies with security best practices to otherwise deter abuse of IaaS products.
(b) In making findings under subsection (a) of this section on the use of United States IaaS products in malicious cyber-enabled activities, the Secretary shall consider any information the Secretary determines to be relevant, as well as information pertaining to the following factors:
(A) evidence that foreign malicious cyber actors have obtained United States IaaS products from persons offering United States IaaS products in that foreign jurisdiction, including whether such actors obtained such IaaS products through Reseller Accounts;
(B) the extent to which that foreign jurisdiction is a source of malicious cyber-enabled activities; and
(C) Whether the United States has a mutual legal assistance treaty with that foreign jurisdiction, and the experience of United States law enforcement officials and regulatory officials in obtaining information about activities involving United States IaaS products originating in or routed through such foreign jurisdiction; and
(A) the extent to which a foreign person uses United States IaaS products to conduct, facilitate, or promote malicious cyber-enabled activities;
(B) the extent to which United States IaaS products offered by a foreign person are used to facilitate or promote malicious cyber-enabled activities;
(C) the extent to which United States IaaS products offered by a foreign person are used for legitimate business purposes in the jurisdiction; and
(D) the extent to which actions short of the imposition of special measures pursuant to subsection (d) of this section are sufficient, with respect to transactions involving the foreign person offering United States IaaS products, to guard against malicious cyber-enabled activities.
(c) In selecting which special measure or measures to take under this section, the Secretary shall consider:
(d) The special measures referred to in subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section are as follows:
(e) The Secretary shall not impose requirements for United States IaaS providers to take any of the special measures described in subsection (d) of this section earlier than 180 days following the issuance of final regulations described in section 1 of this order.
(b) Within 240 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary, and, as the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security deem appropriate, the heads of other agencies, shall develop and submit to the President a report containing recommendations to encourage:
(c) The report and recommendations provided under subsection (b) of this section shall consider existing mechanisms for such sharing and collaboration, including the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (6 U.S.C. 1503
(a) The term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;
(b) The term “foreign jurisdiction” means any country, subnational territory, or region, other than those subject to the civil or military jurisdiction of the United States, in which any person or group of persons exercises sovereign de facto or de jure authority, including any such country, subnational territory, or region in which a person or group of persons is assuming to exercise governmental authority whether such a person or group of persons has or has not been recognized by the United States;
(c) The term “foreign person” means a person that is not a United States person;
(d) The term “Infrastructure as a Service Account” or “Account” means a formal business relationship established to provide IaaS products to a person in which details of such transactions are recorded.
(e) The term “Infrastructure as a Service Product” means any product or service offered to a consumer, including complimentary or “trial” offerings,
(f) The term “malicious cyber-enabled activities” refers to activities, other than those authorized by or in accordance with United States law that seek to compromise or impair the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of computer, information, or communications systems, networks, physical or virtual infrastructure controlled by computers or information systems, or information resident thereon;
(g) The term “person” means an individual or entity;
(h) The term “Reseller Account” means an Infrastructure as a Service Account established to provide IaaS products to a person who will then offer those products subsequently, in whole or in part, to a third party.
(i) The term “United States Infrastructure as a Service Product” means any Infrastructure as a Service Product owned by any United States person or operated within the territory of the United States of America;
(j) The term “United States Infrastructure as a Service Provider” means any United States Person that offers any Infrastructure as a Service Product;
(k) The term “United States person” means any United States citizen, lawful permanent resident of the United States as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person located in the United States;
“Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Commerce, is hereby authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).”
(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(c) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(d) Nothing in this order prohibits or otherwise restricts authorized intelligence, military, law enforcement, or other activities in furtherance of national security or public safety activities.
(e) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by
(d) The Attorney General is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the
(1) have voluntarily returned to Venezuela or their country of last habitual residence outside the United States;
(2) have not continuously resided in the United States since January 20, 2021;
(3) are inadmissible under section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) or removable under section 237(a)(4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4));
(4) who have been convicted of any felony or 2 or more misdemeanors committed in the United States, or who meet the criteria set forth in section 208(b)(2)(A) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A));
(5) who were deported, excluded, or removed, prior to January 20, 2021;
(6) who are subject to extradition;
(7) whose presence in the United States the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined is not in the interest of the United States or presents a danger to public safety; or
(8) whose presence in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.
(b) Within 45 days of the date of this proclamation, the Secretary of State shall provide to the President a report that includes the following elements:
(a) A description of the current screening and vetting procedures for those seeking immigrant and nonimmigrant entry to the United States. This should include information about any procedures put in place as a result of any of the Executive Order and Proclamations revoked in section 1 of this proclamation and should also include an evaluation of the usefulness of form DS-5535.
(b) A review of foreign government information-sharing practices vis-à-vis the United States in order to evaluate the efficacy of those practices, their contribution to processes for screening and vetting those individuals seeking entry to the United States as immigrants and nonimmigrants, and how the United States ensures the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by foreign governments.
(c) Recommendations to improve screening and vetting activities, including diplomatic efforts to improve international information-sharing, use of foreign assistance funds, where appropriate, to support capacity building for information-sharing and identity-management practices, and ways to further integrate relevant executive department and agency data into the vetting system.
(d) A review of the current use of social media identifiers in the screening and vetting process, including an assessment of whether this use has meaningfully improved screening and vetting, and recommendations in light of this assessment.
(b) This proclamation shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by
(b) The term “underserved communities” refers to populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life, as exemplified by the list in the preceding definition of “equity.”
(b) As part of this study, the Director of OMB shall consider whether to recommend that agencies employ pilot programs to test model assessment tools and assist agencies in doing so.
(c) Within 6 months of the date of this order, the Director of OMB shall deliver a report to the President describing the best practices identified by the study and, as appropriate, recommending approaches to expand use of those methods across the Federal Government.
(a) Potential barriers that underserved communities and individuals may face to enrollment in and access to benefits and services in Federal programs;
(b) Potential barriers that underserved communities and individuals may face in taking advantage of agency procurement and contracting opportunities;
(c) Whether new policies, regulations, or guidance documents may be necessary to advance equity in agency actions and programs; and
(d) The operational status and level of institutional resources available to offices or divisions within the agency that are responsible for advancing civil rights or whose mandates specifically include serving underrepresented or disadvantaged communities.
(a) The Director of OMB shall identify opportunities to promote equity in the budget that the President submits to the Congress.
(b) The Director of OMB shall, in coordination with the heads of agencies, study strategies, consistent with applicable law, for allocating Federal resources in a manner that increases investment in underserved communities, as well as individuals from those communities. The Director of OMB shall report the findings of this study to the President.
(a) Within 1 year of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall consult with the APDP and the Director of OMB to produce a plan for addressing:
(b) The Administrator of the U.S. Digital Service, the United States Chief Technology Officer, the Chief Information Officer of the United States, and the heads of other agencies, or their designees, shall take necessary actions, consistent with applicable law, to support agencies in developing such plans.
(a)
(b)
(A) the Director of OMB;
(B) the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau;
(C) the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers;
(D) the Chief Information Officer of the United States;
(E) the Secretary of the Treasury, through the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy;
(F) the Chief Data Scientist of the United States; and
(G) the Administrator of the U.S. Digital Service.
(c)
(d) OMB shall provide administrative support for the Data Working Group, consistent with applicable law.
(b) The heads of agencies covered by Executive Order 13950 shall review and identify proposed and existing agency actions related to or arising from Executive Order 13950. The head of each agency shall, within 60 days of the date of this order, consider suspending, revising, or rescinding any such actions, including all agency actions to terminate or restrict contracts or grants pursuant to Executive Order 13950, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(c) Executive Order 13958 of November 2, 2020 (Establishing the President's Advisory 1776 Commission), is hereby revoked.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) Independent agencies are strongly encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order.
(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(b) The COVID-19 Response Coordinator shall have the authority to convene principals from relevant agencies, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy (APDP) on matters involving the domestic COVID-19 response, and in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA) on matters involving the global COVID-19 response. The COVID-19 Response Coordinator shall also coordinate any corresponding deputies and interagency processes.
(c) The COVID-19 Response Coordinator may act through designees in performing these or any other duties.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(b) The head of each agency shall, as soon as practicable and as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, including the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551
(c) The head of each agency shall, as soon as practicable, also consider whether there are additional actions that the agency should take to ensure that it is fully implementing the policy set forth in section 1 of this order. If an agency takes an action described in this subsection or subsection (b) of this section, it shall seek to ensure that it is accounting for, and taking appropriate steps to combat, overlapping forms of discrimination, such as discrimination on the basis of race or disability.
(d) Within 100 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall develop, in consultation with the Attorney General, as appropriate, a plan to carry out actions that the agency has identified pursuant to subsections (b) and (c) of this section, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(a) participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied, or engaged in registrable activity under FARA, within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;
(b) participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls; or
(c) seek or accept employment with any executive agency with respect to which I lobbied, or engaged in registrable activity under FARA, within the 2 years before the date of my appointment.
(a) “Executive agency” shall include each “executive agency” as defined by section 105 of title 5, United States Code, and shall include the Executive Office of the President; provided, however, that “executive agency” shall include the United States Postal Service and Postal Regulatory Commission, but shall exclude the Government Accountability Office.
(b) “Appointee” shall include every full-time, non-career Presidential or Vice-Presidential appointee, non-career appointee in the Senior Executive Service (or other SES-type system), and appointee to a position that has been excepted from the competitive service by reason of being of a confidential or policymaking character (Schedule C and other positions excepted under comparable criteria) in an executive agency. It does not include any person appointed as a member of the Senior Foreign Service or solely as a uniformed service commissioned officer.
(c) “Gift”:
(d) “Covered executive branch official” and “lobbyist” shall have the definitions set forth in section 1602 of title 2, United States Code.
(e) “Registered lobbyist or lobbying organization” shall mean a lobbyist or an organization filing a registration pursuant to section 1603(a) of title 2, United States Code, and in the case of an organization filing such a registration, “registered lobbyist” shall include each of the lobbyists identified therein.
(f) “Lobby” and “lobbied” shall mean to act or have acted as a registered lobbyist.
(g) “Lobbying activities” shall have the definition set forth in section 1602 of title 2, United States Code.
(h) “Materially assist” means to provide substantive assistance but does not include providing background or general education on a matter of law or policy based upon an individual's subject matter expertise, nor any conduct or assistance permitted under section 207(j) of title 18, United States Code.
(i) “Particular matter” shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 207 of title 18, United States Code, and section 2635.402(b)(3) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.
(j) “Particular matter involving specific parties” shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 2641.201(h) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, except that it shall also include any meeting or other communication relating to the performance of one's official duties with a former employer or former client, unless the communication applies to a particular matter of general applicability and participation in the meeting or other event is open to all interested parties.
(k) “Former employer” is any person for whom the appointee has within the 2 years prior to the date of his or her appointment served as an employee, officer, director, trustee, or general partner, except that “former employer” does not include any executive agency or other entity of the Federal Government, State or local government, the District of Columbia, Native American tribe, any United States territory or possession, or any international organization in which the United States is a member state.
(l) “Former client” is any person for whom the appointee served personally as agent, attorney, or consultant within the 2 years prior to the date of his or her appointment, but excluding instances where the service provided was limited to speeches or similar appearances. It does not include clients of the appointee's former employer to whom the appointee did not personally provide services.
(m) “Directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients” shall mean matters in which the appointee's former employer or a former client is a party or represents a party.
(n) “Participate” means to participate personally and substantially.
(o) “Government official” means any employee of the executive branch.
(p) “Administration” means all terms of office of the incumbent President serving at the time of the appointment of an appointee covered by this order.
(q) “Pledge” means the ethics pledge set forth in section 1 of this order.
(r) “Senior White House staff” means any person appointed by the President to a position under sections 105(a)(2)(A) or (B) of title 3, United States Code, or by the Vice President to a position under sections 106(a)(1)(A) or (B) of title 3.
(s) All references to provisions of law and regulations shall refer to such provisions as are in effect on January 20, 2021.
(b) A waiver shall take effect when the certification is signed by the Director of OMB and shall be made public within 10 days thereafter.
(c) The public interest shall include, but not be limited to, exigent circumstances relating to national security, the economy, public health, or the environment. In determining whether it is in the public interest to grant a waiver of the restrictions contained in paragraphs 3(b) and (c) of the pledge, the responsible official may consider the following factors:
(b) With respect to the Executive Office of the President, the duties set forth in section 4(a) of this order shall be the responsibility of the Counsel to the President.
(c) The Director of the Office of Government Ethics shall:
(A) to carry out the foregoing responsibilities;
(B) to authorize limited exceptions to the lobbyist gift ban for circumstances that do not implicate the purposes of the ban;
(C) to make clear that no person shall have violated the lobbyist gift ban if the person properly disposes of a gift as provided by section 2635.206 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations;
(D) to ensure that existing rules and procedures for Government employees engaged in negotiations for future employment with private businesses that are affected by the employees' official actions do not affect the integrity of the Government's programs and operations;
(E) to ensure, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, that the requirement set forth in paragraph 6 of the pledge is honored by every employee of the executive branch;
(d) The Director of the Office of Government Ethics shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Counsel to the President, and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, report to the President on steps the executive branch can take to expand to the fullest extent practicable the revolving door ban set forth in paragraph 5 of the pledge to all executive branch employees who are involved in the procurement process such that they may not for 2 years after leaving Government service lobby any Government official regarding a Government contract that was under their official responsibility in the last 2 years of their Government service. This report shall include both immediate actions the executive branch can take and, if necessary, recommendations for legislation.
(e) All pledges signed by appointees, and all waiver certifications with respect thereto, shall be filed with the head of the appointee's agency for permanent retention in the appointee's official personnel folder or equivalent folder.
(b) Any former appointee who is determined, after notice and hearing, by the duly designated authority within any agency, to have violated his or her pledge may be barred from lobbying any officer or employee of that agency for up to 5 years in addition to the time period covered by the pledge. The head of every executive agency shall, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, establish procedures to implement this subsection, which procedures shall include (but not be limited to) providing for fact-finding and investigation of possible violations
(c) The Attorney General is authorized:
(d) In any such civil action, the Attorney General is authorized to request any and all relief authorized by law, including but not limited to:
(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(c) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, heads of agencies shall submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a preliminary list of any actions being considered pursuant to section (2)(a) of this order that would be completed by December 31, 2021, and that would be subject to OMB review. Within 90 days of the date of this order, heads of agencies shall submit to the Director of OMB an updated list of any actions being considered pursuant to section (2)(a) of this order that would be completed by December 31, 2025, and that would be subject to OMB review. At the time of submission to the Director of OMB, heads of agencies shall also send each list to the National Climate Advisor. In addition, and at the same time, heads of agencies shall send to the National Climate Advisor a list of additional actions being considered pursuant to section (2)(a) of this order that would not be subject to OMB review.
(c) Heads of agencies shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, consider whether to take any additional agency actions to fully enforce the policy set forth in section 1 of this order. With respect to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the following specific actions should be considered:
(d) The Attorney General may, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, provide notice of this order and any actions taken pursuant to section 2(a) of this order to any court with jurisdiction over pending litigation related to those agency actions identified pursuant to section (2)(a) of this order, and may, in his discretion, request that the court stay or otherwise dispose of litigation, or seek other appropriate relief consistent with this order, until the completion of the processes described in this order.
(e) In carrying out the actions directed in this section, heads of agencies shall seek input from the public and stakeholders, including State local, Tribal, and territorial officials, scientists, labor unions, environmental advocates, and environmental justice organizations.
(b) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior shall submit a report to the President summarizing the findings of the review conducted pursuant to subsection (a), which shall include recommendations for such Presidential actions or other actions consistent with law as the Secretary may consider appropriate to carry out the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.
(c) The Attorney General may, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, provide notice of this order to any court with jurisdiction over pending litigation related to the Grand Staircase-Escalante, Bears Ears, and Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monuments, and may, in his discretion, request that the court stay the litigation or otherwise delay further litigation, or seek other appropriate relief consistent with this order, pending the completion of the actions described in subsection (a) of this section.
(b) In Executive Order 13754 of December 9, 2016 (Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience), and in the Presidential Memorandum of December 20, 2016 (Withdrawal of Certain Portions of the United States Arctic Outer Continental Shelf From Mineral Leasing), President Obama withdrew areas in Arctic waters and the Bering Sea from oil and gas drilling and established the Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area. Subsequently, the order was revoked and the memorandum was amended in Executive Order 13795 of April 28, 2017 (Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy). Pursuant to section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1341(a), Executive Order 13754 and the Presidential Memorandum of December 20, 2016, are hereby reinstated in their original form, thereby restoring the original withdrawal of certain offshore areas in Arctic waters and the Bering Sea from oil and gas drilling.
(c) The Attorney General may, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, provide notice of this order to any court with jurisdiction over pending litigation related to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other related programs, and may, in his discretion, request that the court stay the litigation or otherwise delay further litigation, or seek other appropriate relief consistent with this order, pending the completion of the actions described in subsection (a) of this section.
(b) There is hereby established an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (the “Working Group”). The Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Director of OMB, and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall serve as Co-Chairs of the Working Group.
(A) publish an interim SCC, SCN, and SCM within 30 days of the date of this order, which agencies shall use when monetizing the value of changes in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from regulations and other relevant agency actions until final values are published;
(B) publish a final SCC, SCN, and SCM by no later than January 2022;
(C) provide recommendations to the President, by no later than September 1, 2021, regarding areas of decision-making, budgeting, and procurement by the Federal Government where the SCC, SCN, and SCM should be applied;
(D) provide recommendations, by no later than June 1, 2022, regarding a process for reviewing, and, as appropriate, updating, the SCC, SCN, and SCM to ensure that these costs are based on the best available economics and science; and
(E) provide recommendations, to be published with the final SCC, SCN, and SCM under subparagraph (A) if feasible, and in any event by no later than June 1, 2022, to revise methodologies for calculating the SCC, SCN, and SCM, to the extent that current methodologies do not adequately take account of climate risk, environmental justice, and intergenerational equity.
(b) In 2015, following an exhaustive review, the Department of State and the President determined that approving the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would not serve the U.S. national interest. That analysis, in addition to concluding that the significance of the proposed pipeline for our energy security and economy is limited, stressed that the United States must prioritize the development of a clean energy economy, which will in turn create good jobs. The analysis further concluded that approval of the proposed pipeline would undermine U.S. climate leadership by undercutting the credibility and influence of the United States in urging other countries to take ambitious climate action.
(c) Climate change has had a growing effect on the U.S. economy, with climate-related costs increasing over the last 4 years. Extreme weather events and other climate-related effects have harmed the health, safety, and security of the American people and have increased the urgency for combatting climate change and accelerating the transition toward a clean energy economy. The world must be put on a sustainable climate pathway to protect Americans and the domestic economy from harmful climate impacts, and to create well-paying union jobs as part of the climate solution.
(d) The Keystone XL pipeline disserves the U.S. national interest. The United States and the world face a climate crisis. That crisis must be met with action on a scale and at a speed commensurate with the need to avoid setting the world on a dangerous, potentially catastrophic, climate trajectory. At home, we will combat the crisis with an ambitious plan to build back better, designed to both reduce harmful emissions and create good clean-energy jobs. Our domestic efforts must go hand in hand with U.S. diplomatic engagement. Because most greenhouse gas emissions originate beyond our borders, such engagement is more necessary and urgent than ever. The United States must be in a position to exercise vigorous climate leadership in order to achieve a significant increase in global climate action and put the world on a sustainable climate pathway. Leaving the Keystone XL pipeline permit in place would not be consistent with my Administration's economic and climate imperatives.
(b) Executive Order 13807 of August 15, 2017 (Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects), is hereby revoked. The Director of OMB and the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality shall jointly consider whether to recommend that a replacement order be issued.
(c) Executive Order 13920 of May 1, 2020 (Securing the United States Bulk-Power System), is hereby suspended for 90 days. The Secretary of Energy and the Director of OMB shall jointly consider whether to recommend that a replacement order be issued.
(d) The Presidential Memorandum of April 12, 2018 (Promoting Domestic Manufacturing and Job Creation Policies and Procedures Relating to Implementation of Air Quality Standards), the Presidential Memorandum of October 19, 2018 (Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West), and the Presidential Memorandum of February 19, 2020 (Developing and Delivering More Water Supplies in California), are hereby revoked.
(e) The Council on Environmental Quality shall rescind its draft guidance entitled, “Draft National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” 84 FR 30097 (June 26, 2019). The Council, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, shall review, revise, and update its final guidance entitled, “Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews,” 81 FR 51866 (August 5, 2016).
(f) The Director of OMB and the heads of agencies shall promptly take steps to rescind any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies, or portions thereof, including, if necessary, by proposing such rescissions through notice-and-comment rulemaking, implementing or enforcing the Executive Orders, Presidential Memoranda, and draft guidance identified in this section, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(b) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Administrator of General Services, in coordination with the President's Management Council and the Coordinator of the COVID-19 Response and Counselor to the President (COVID-19 Response Coordinator), shall promptly issue guidance to assist heads of agencies with implementation of this section.
(c) Heads of agencies shall promptly consult, as appropriate, with State, local, Tribal, and territorial government officials, Federal employees, Federal employee unions, Federal contractors, and any other interested parties concerning the implementation of this section.
(d) Heads of agencies may make categorical or case-by-case exceptions in implementing subsection (a) of this section to the extent that doing so is necessary or required by law, and consistent with applicable law. If heads of agencies make such exceptions, they shall require appropriate alternative safeguards, such as additional physical distancing measures, additional testing, or reconfiguration of workspace, consistent with applicable law. Heads of agencies shall document all exceptions in writing.
(e) Heads of agencies shall review their existing authorities and, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations and resources, seek to provide masks to individuals in Federal buildings when needed.
(f) The COVID-19 Response Coordinator shall coordinate the implementation of this section. Heads of the agencies listed in 31 U.S.C. 901(b) shall
(b) The COVID-19 Response Coordinator, in coordination with the Secretary of HHS, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the heads of other relevant agencies, shall promptly identify and inform agencies of options to incentivize, support, and encourage widespread mask-wearing consistent with CDC guidelines and applicable law.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(b) The Director of OPM and the Administrator of General Services shall seek to consult, in coordination with the heads of any other relevant agencies and the COVID-19 Response Coordinator, with the Sergeants at Arms of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (or such other persons designated by the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House, or the Chief Justice of the United States, respectively), to promote mask-wearing, physical distancing, and adherence to other public health measures within the legislative and judicial branches, and shall provide requested technical assistance as needed to facilitate compliance with CDC guidelines.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) Independent agencies are strongly encouraged to comply with the requirements of this order.
(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(b) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the
(1) Individuals who would be ineligible for TPS for the reasons provided in section 244(c)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2)(B);
(2) Individuals who sought or seek LPR status under the LRIF provision but whose applications have been or are denied by the Secretary of Homeland Security;
(3) Individuals whose removal the Secretary of Homeland Security determines is in the interest of the United States, subject to the LRIF provision;
(4) Individuals whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States;
(5) Individuals who have voluntarily returned to Liberia or their country of last habitual residence outside the United States for an aggregate period of 180 days or more, as specified in subsection (c)(2) of the LRIF provision;
(6) Individuals who were deported, excluded, or removed prior to the date of this memorandum; or
(7) Individuals who are subject to extradition.
(1) a deferral of enforced departure from the United States through June 30, 2022, effective immediately; and
(2) authorization for employment valid through June 30, 2022.